LAILA KHATOON v. THE STATE OF BIHAR
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAMESH KUMAR DATTA
Outcome
Allowed
application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 s. 44(3)(i)
Judgment
Mahapur Jhajha, P.S.Jhajha, Dist. Jamui 21. Sri Arvind Ram, son of late Baleshwar Ram, resident of Chitochak, P.S. Jhajha, Dist. Jamui 22. Smt Khatija Khatun, w/o d/o Md.Tarmul Ansari resident of Barajor, P.S. Jhajha, Dist. Jamui 23. Sri Nasim Khan, son of Rashid Khan, resident of Balio, P.S.Jhajha, Dist. Jamui 24. Sri Shankar Sharma, son of Hiraman Sharma, resident of Kawan, P.S. Jhajha, Dist. Jamui 25. Sri Upendra Yadav, son of Sri Arjun Yadav, resident of Digra Dhamna, P.S. Jhajha, Dist. Jamui 26. Smt. Gulabi Devi d/o w/o Sri Shankar Mandal resident of Dhapri Barajor, P.S. Jhajha, Dist. Jamui 27. Smt. Malti Devi D/o w/o Sri Vishwanath Das, resident of Sundaridhar, P.S. Jhajha, Dist. Jamui 28. Sri Mahendra Paswan, son of Jago Paswan, resident of Jamu, P.S. Jhajha, Dist. Jamui 29. Sri Rajendra Yadav, son of Dhano Yadav, resident of Barakola Rajla, P.S. Jhajha, Dist. Jamui 30. Smt. Madhu d/o w/o Sri Guoal Pandit, resident of Sasarpur, P.S.Jhajha, Dist. Jamui-respondents ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Surendra Kr.Singh Sudha Singh For the State :Mr.Krishna Chandra Jha, A.C. to S.C.18 For respondent no.29:M/S Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr.Advocate Dr.Gajendra Pd.yadav For SEC :Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh. ------
17.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.29 and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the entire proceedings of No Confidence Motion initiated against the petitioner Up-Pramukh which resulted in the 3 same being passed at the special meeting leading to her removal from the post of Up- Pramukh of Jhajha Panchayat Samiti on
Operative part
24.11.2008. Three contentions have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, it is submitted that the requisition not being addressed to the Pramukh nor any attempt having been made to present the same to the Pramukh, rather it having been addressed to the Executive Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The second ground taken is that the notice dated 17.11.2008 does not contain any reason/charges for considering the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner, which is also in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 44(3)(i) of the Act. Lastly, it is argued that the notice dated 17.11.2008 fixing the date for convening the special meeting on 24.11.2008 violates the mandatory provisions of Section 46(4) of the Act as it does not provide for seven clear days notice. 4 Learned counsel appearing respondent does not seriously challenge the aforesaid contentions. In the above circumstances, the writ application is allowed. The requisition dated
11.11.2008, the notice dated 17.11.2008 as also the Resolution of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner Up-Pramukh dated
24.11.2008 are all quashed. It shall be open to the concerned respondents to proceed afresh in the matter, if so advised, in accordance with law. spal/ (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 — s. 44(3)(i).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.