Sita Devi v. The State of Bihar

----------- For the petitioner: Mr. S.B.K.Mangalam, Advocate ………………… Respondents. For the State: Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, AC to GA 7 For Pvt. Respondents: M/S Banwari Sharma, Shiv Kumar and Singh Rajesh Kumar, Advocates. ------------ 2

24.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the appearing respondents and learned State counsel. The petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings of the special meeting dated 30.12.2008 of Basopatti Panchayat Samiti in which no confidence motion was passed against her whereby she was removed from the post of Pramukh. Two grounds have been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case. It is firstly submitted that the requisition for convening the special meeting for consideration of no confidence motion was not presented before the petitioner. It is next submitted that the date of the special meeting for considering no confidence motion has not been fixed by the petitioner-Pramukh or upon her failure by the Up-Pramukh or one-third of the directly elected members but on his own by the Executive Officer. It is argued that both the requirements are mandatory in terms of Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 but the same not having been complied with, the entire proceedings from the requisition to the notice and the passing of the no confidence motion ought to be quashed. Learned counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, contend that it is evident from the counter affidavits filed by the respondents that the requisition was submitted directly to the 3 petitioner as the Pramukh on 3.12.2008 and thereafter on 4.12.2008 the Executive Officer had also written to her along with a copy of the requisition which had been served in his office as per the requirement of the Act with a request to her to fix the date of the special meeting. On the failure of the petitioner to fix the date again the Executive Officer had sent reminder in this regard by his letter dated 19.12.2008. Since the petitioner took no action thereafter 12 out of 22 directly elected members of the Panchayat Samiti personally approached the Executive Officer on 22.12.2008 with their written request for fixing the date of the special meeting on

30.12.2008 and requested him to issue notice accordingly. It is submitted that on the basis of the written request of the members the special meeting was fixed on 30.12.2008 on which date the no confidence motion against the petitioner was passed by 14 out of 22 directly elected members, all of whom were present in the meeting. It is submitted that in the said facts and circumstances, the petitioner has no case and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. This Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsels for the respondents that there is substantial compliance of the provisions of the Act. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have failed to produce any proof regarding receipt of the requisition by the petitioner does 4 not have much force in view of the specific assertions made by the respondents in their counter affidavits in this regard as also by the Executive Officer. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)