Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16268 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Mahendra Mandal S/O Late Moti Mandal Resident Of Village- Nav Tole, Panchayat- Naya Nagar, P.S- Uda Kishunganj, District- Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Madhepura. 3. The Block Development Officer, Udakishunganj- Cum- Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Udakishunganj. 4. Sri Pramod Kumar Mahto (Pramukh) S/O Ram Swaroop Mahto Resident Of Village- Nenua, Panchayat- Barahi Anandpura, P.S- Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura 5. Smt. Sanbari Khatoon (Up Pramukh), W/O Md. Ansarul Resident Of Village- Devail, P.S- Bihariganj, District- Madhepura. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mr. Amarnath Singh For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Pawan Kumar For the State : Mr. Hare Ram Singh Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 26-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is one of the requisitionist-member of Panchayat Samiti. He has moved this Court for a direction to respondent no.3 i.e. the Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Udakishunganj to hold a meeting on no confidence motion submitted by the requisitionists on the date fixed by them.
Legal Reasoning
Case of the petitioner is that the first requisition was submitted by the requisitionists on 27.6.2013, vide Annexure-1. Patna High Court CWJC No.16268 of 2013 (3) dt.26-09-2013 2/6 Notice was issued and 10.7.2013 was the date fixed for the special meeting. Special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti was indeed held on 10.7.2013. However, requisition could not be put to vote as there was no unanimity between the members as to who would preside the meeting. The Executive Committee, therefore, adjourned the meeting for the purposes of seeking guidelines from the higher authorities. Thereafter, 13 members out of 22 submitted another requisition to the Pramukh (Respondent No.4) on 27.7.2013 for holding a fresh meeting. Respondent no.4 did not fix the date of meeting on the same and therefore those 13 members themselves fixed a meeting on 10.8.2013 and informed the Executive Officer to issue necessary notices in this regard. The Executive Officer has not acted upon the same which has given cause of action to the petitioner to move this Court.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since earlier meeting could not be held and the requisition for no confidence motion could not be put to vote, bar contained in Clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 will not apply in the matter. Hence, Executive Officer was under legal obligation to issue notice on the date fixed for meeting by the requisitioning members. Respondent no.4 the Pramukh has appeared. Learned Patna High Court CWJC No.16268 of 2013 (3) dt.26-09-2013 3/6 counsel appearing on his behalf submits that all the formalities of section 44 of the Act had been complied with by the Executive Officer and meeting had been convened. In the meeting dated 10.7.2013 no unanimity could be arrived at between the members and therefore meeting was adjourned. Hence, once the meeting was adjourned, in terms of the bar contained in clause (iii) of sub- section (3) of Section 44 of the Act, no meeting could be convened within one year. Therefore, the Executive Officer rightly did not issue notices to the members on the subsequent requisition by the members. In view of the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, question which squarely falls for consideration before this Court is whether in the fact situation of the case bar of clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Act will apply in the case or not. Hence, for convenience, said clause (iii) is being reproduced in this order itself as follows :- “(iii) if the motion of no confidence brought against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh or both is once rejected, no fresh motion of no confidence against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh or both, as the case may be, shall be brought before the Panchayat Samiti within a period of one year from the date of such rejection of the motion.” Hindi version of clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Act is also being reproduced hereinbelow for Patna High Court CWJC No.16268 of 2013 (3) dt.26-09-2013 4/6 easy reference :- “ iii) , ” -- , , A bare reading of English and Hindi version of said clause (iii) shows that the same is not applicable in the present case. In English version the words used are “if the motion of no confidence … is once rejected, no fresh motion …… shall be brought … within a period of one year …..” In Hindi version also, wordings are “ , ……….. ” Thus, it is clear that the intention of the Legislature was that if no confidence motion is put to vote and is rejected then only no fresh requisition for no confidence motion can be brought in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti within one year. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent no.4 has drawn the attention of this Court to clause (vi) of sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Act. The said clause (vi) in English and Hindi reads as Patna High Court CWJC No.16268 of 2013 (3) dt.26-09-2013 5/6 follows : the presiding member of “(vi) As soon as the meeting called under this section begins, this meeting shall read out the motion on which the meeting has been called to consider before the members present and declare it open for discussion. Any discussion on the motion shall not be adjourned.” “(vi) , - ” This Clause (vi) shows that as soon as meeting is called, presiding member has to read out the motion on which the meeting was called to consider before the members present and declare it open for discussion and any discussion on the motion has not to be adjourned. Facts of the case show that the members could not take a decision as to who was to preside the meeting. Hence stage of this clause (vi) had not even reached in the case, as neither any member was nominated to preside the meeting nor requisition was read out nor was it put for discussion. In the circumstances, it is clear that the stage at which bar of clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Act is intended to apply had not reached in this case. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the Patna High Court CWJC No.16268 of 2013 (3) dt.26-09-2013 6/6 Executive Officer was not justified in not issuing notices on the requisition of the members. Writ application is accordingly allowed. The Executive Officer is directed to fix up 21st October, 2013 at 11.00 A.M. as the date and time for meeting on the requisition of the members and issue notice along with a copy of the requisition to all the members with at least clear 7 days intervening. Meeting shall be held on that day in accordance with law. (Jayanandan Singh, J) Pradeep/-