Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 15857 of 2013 ====================================================== Baidh Nath Prasad S/O Late Jangi Prasad R/O Village- Piradi, P.S. Inarwa, District- West Champaran, Betiah .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar Patna 2. Director, Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna 3. District Magistrate West Champaran, Betiah 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Narkatiaganj, District West Champaran, Betiah 5. District Panchayat Raj Officer, District West Champaran, Betiah 6. Block Development Officer-Cum-Executive Officer, Mainatar, District West Champaran, Betiah 7. The State Election Commissioner, Bihar Patna 8. Praful Azam Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 9. Ragani Choudhary Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 10. Nur Hoda Mian Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 11. Janha Pravej Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 12. Gausul Azam Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 13. Md. Abdull Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 14. Subujan Khatun Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 15. Hajara Khatun Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 16. Raj Kumari Devi Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 17. Usha Devi Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 18. Md. Shamim Akhatur Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 19. Basudeo Ram Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 20. Manhanth Ram Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 21. Ganesh Sah Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 22. Sarita Devi Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 23. Lalmuni Devi Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 24. Rekha Devi Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 25. Nagendra Yadav Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Patna High Court CWJC No.15857 of 2013 (4) dt.26-11-2013 2 Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 26. Kapildeo Yadav Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 27. Anita Devi Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah 28. Babita Devi Member Of Panchayat Samiti, Mainatad, P.O. + P.S.- Mainatad, District- West Champaran At Betiah WITH Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 16087 of 2013 ====================================================== Gaisul Azam Son Of Hasmuddin Ansari Resident Of Village Inarwa, P.S. Inarwa, District- West Champaran .... .... Respondent/s .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Director Panchayati Raj Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate Bettiah, West Champaran 3. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Narkatiyaganj In The District Of West Champaran 5. The Executive Officer Cum Block Development Officer, Mainatand Block In The District Of West Champaran 6. Baidhnath Prasad Son Of Late Gangi Prasad Resident Of Village Piradi P.S.- Inarwa, District West Champaran, The Prakhand Pramukh Cum Chairman Panchayat Samiti Mainatand In The District Of West Champaran 7. Raj Kumari Devi Wife Of Asesar Yadav Resident Of Langadi, P.S. Mainatand, District- West Champaran 8. Usha Devi Wife Of Ghanshyam Prasad Resident Of Village- Parsa, P.S. Purusottampur, District- West Champaran 9. Md. Shamim Akhatar Son Of Late Md. Matin Ansari Resident Of Village- Basantpur, P.S. Mainatand, District- West Champaran 10. Basudeo Ram Son Of Haricharan Ram Resident Of Village- Purainiya, P.S. Manpur, District- West Champaran 11. Mahanth Ram Son Of Late Kamal Ram Resident Of Village Dudhaura, P.S. Manpur, District- West Champaran 12. Ganesh Sah Son Of Late Shankar Sah Resident Of Village Bathnauli, P.S. Mainatand, District- West Champaran 13. Sarita Devi Wife Of Sudarshan Mahto Resident Of Basantpur, P.S. Mainatand, District- West Champaran 14. Lalmuni Devi Wife Of Braj Kishore Prasad Resident Of Village Pidari, P.S.- Inarwa, District- West Champaran 15. Rekha Devi Wife Of Nagendra Paswan Resident Of Sukhalahi, P.S. Mainatand, District- West Champaran 16. Nagendra Yadav Son Of Deoraj Yadav Resident Of Bihari Tola Chapatiya, P.S.- Bhangaha, District- West Champaran 17. Kapil Deo Yadav Son Of Late Shukdeo Yadav Resident Of Village- Siswa Tajpur, P.S. Bhangaha, District- West Champaran 18. Anita Devi Wife Of Sheshnath Sah Resident Of Village- Pidari, P.S. Inarwa, District- West Champaran 19. Babita Devi Wife Of Suresh Sah Resident Of Village- Nakarchhed Patna High Court CWJC No.15857 of 2013 (4) dt.26-11-2013 3 Bahuarwa, P.S.- Purushattampur, District- West Champaran 20. Jnha Prawez Son Of Najir Ahmad Resident Of Damarapur, P.S. Marpur, District- West Champaran 21. Nurul Hoda Mansuri Son Of Hamuddin Mansuri Resident Of Inarwa, P.S. Inarwa, District West Champaran 22. Abdullah Son Of Late Raisul Azam Resident Of Inarwa, P.S. Purushottampur, District West Champaran 23. Praphul Azam Son Of Late Sk. Khalil Resident Of Madhuri, P.S. Purshottampur, District- West Champaran 24. Ragani Choudhari Wife Of Shibbu Chaudhari Resident Of Village- Chapariya Tola, P.S. Mainatand, District- West Champaran 25. Hajara Khatoon Wife Of Maldhari Bashtha Resident Of Mainatand, P.S. Mainatand, District- West Champaran 26. Sabujn Khatoon Wife Of Rajbullah Baitha Resident Of Bhedihari, P.S. Purushottampur, District- West Champaran 27. Harendra Prasad Son Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Of Gram Panchayat Raj Mainatand, Resident Of Village/ Mohalla- Mainatand, P.S. Mainatand, District- West Champaran 28. Surya Prasad Son Of Not Known The Petitioner Mukhiya Of Gram Panchayat Raj Piradi, P.S. Inarwa, District- West Champaran 29. Mukti Paswan Son Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Madhuri, P.S. Mainatand District West Champaran 30. Motichand Prasad Son Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Of Gram Panchayat Raj Sukhalahi, P.S. Mainatand, District- West Champaran 31. Rameshwar Prasad Son Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Sagarauwa Mhuawa, P.S.- Purushottampur, District- West Champaran 32. Kushum Tara Wife Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Lakshmipur, P.S. Pursushottampur, District West Champaran 33. Bhunishwar Prasad Son Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Chauhatta, P.S. Manpur, District West Champaran 34. Gopi Subba Son Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Rampur, P.S. Bhangaha, District West Champaran 35. Samtoli Devi Wife Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Bashtha P.S. Inarwa, District West Champaran 36. Varsha Sah Son Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Bhangaha P.S.- Bhangaha, District West Champaran 37. Aarati Devi Wife Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Tola Chapariya, P.S.- Mainatand District West Champaran 38. Amrendra Kumar Yadav Son Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Damarapur, P.S.- Manpur, District West Champaran 39. Kushum Devi Wife Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj- Inarwa, P.S. Inarwa, District West Champaran 40. Lalmunni Devi Wife Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Barwa, P.S. Inarwa, District West Champaran 41. Shamsul Mian Son Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Purainiya, P.S.- Mainatand, District West Champaran 42. Rina Devi Wife Of Not Known To The Petitioner Mukhiya Of Gram Panchayat Raj Sakraul, P.S.- Inarwa, District West Champaran 43. Mr. Baidhyanath Prasad Mahto Son Of Not Known To The Petitioner Member Of Parliament- Valmikinagar Constituency In The District Of West
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.15857 of 2013 (4) dt.26-11-2013 4
Legal Reasoning
Champaran 44. Mr. Dilip Verma Son Of Not Known The Petitioner Member Of Legislative Assembly Sikta, District West Champaran 45. The State Election Commission, Bihar through its Secretary, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/s Sharda Nand Mishra & Bimlesh Kr Pandey, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr Majoj Kumar Ambastha, GP 14, Mr Subodh Kr, AC to GP 14 & Mr Vijay Bharti, AC to SC 26 For private respondents Mr S B K Mangalam, Advocate For Election Commission M/s Amit Shrivastava & Girish Pandey, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 26-11-2013 By these two writ petitions, challenge has been made to the no confidence motion as passed against them being Pramukh and Up Pramukh respectively of Mainatand Block Panchayat Samiti in the district of West Champaran. Initially, when the writ petitions were filed, while issuing notice to the private respondents, this Court had stayed the State Election Commission from taking steps for holding fresh elections. Accordingly, on appearance of some of the private respondents, an application has been filed for vacating the order of stay. As counter affidavits have already been filed with Patna High Court CWJC No.15857 of 2013 (4) dt.26-11-2013 5 rejoinders thereto, including by the State, with consent of parties,
Decision
the writ petitions have been heard for its final disposal at the stage of admission itself. On behalf of the Pramukh, it is submitted that no requisition requesting fixing of date for special meeting was served on the Pramukh though Pramukh agrees having received the requisition fixing date of special meeting alongwith charges. His further submission is that notice of meeting had not been served on all other members. On behalf of Up Pramukh, it is submitted that the charges, as contained in the requisition which he had received, were vague as against him and none of the charges point to any dereliction on part of the Up Pramukh. It is then submitted on behalf of Up Pramukh that in case the Pramukh had failed to act upon the requisition then the matter should have been placed before the Up Pramukh which was not done. Accordingly, on these technicalities, the vote of no confidence, as passed against the Pramukh and Up Pramukh, is being challenged. Let it be noted that in the said Block Panchayat Samiti, there are 22 elected members. The no confidence was passed unanimously by 13 members present and voting. On the other hand, Shri S B K Mangalam for some of the private respondents in fact the respondents, who had Patna High Court CWJC No.15857 of 2013 (4) dt.26-11-2013 6 requisitioned the meeting, submits that notice was issued to the Pramukh which was received in his office. He failed to respond. It is then that the 13 members resolved to call the meeting fixing a date and, accordingly, the BDO, who is the Executive Officer, noticed all the parties. He also points out that in interregnum, the Pramukh and Up Pramukh had also made attempts to garner support. They had also got 8 people to move another vote of confidence. But 8 was not a clear majority and it was not followed up. These facts clearly show that everyone was aware of everything but the Pramukh and Up Pramukh have lost the confidence of the Panchayat Samiti and, thus, on legal technicalities, they should not be permitted to continue. Having considered the matter, in my view, Shri Mangalam is correct. Firstly, once clearly a person looses the confidence of the House, it would be highly inadvisable for this Court to interfere merely on hyper technicalities and restore the person who has lost the confidence of the House. Democracy cannot depend on legal technicalities. In regard to the facts, firstly, State has also filed counter affidavit and the records have been produced pursuant to earlier orders. It clearly reveals that the requisition, as made by the private respondents who are represented by Shri Mangalam, Patna High Court CWJC No.15857 of 2013 (4) dt.26-11-2013 7 was served on the Pramukh which was accepted in his office. The Pramukh agrees that the notice fixing the date was duly served upon him. Pramukh is unable to bring on record any contemporaneous document to show that at that time he made any complaint that no requisition was served upon him at any point of time. That was a condition precedent and was not invoked by the Pramukh. In other words, one-third members can fix a date only when Pramukh is requisitioned and fails to fix a date. Thus, Pramukh should have protested. There is no protest. Thus, the stand of the Pramukh that requisition was not sent to him cannot be accepted. Moreover, the Up Pramukh accepts that the requisition was duly received by him. That would show that the stand of the Pramukh is not bona fide in this regard. The other stand of the Pramukh is that not all members have been noticed. What he means to say is that apart from the 13 members, the other 9 members including the two writ petitions were not noticed for the meeting and, as such, it was an improperly called meeting. First, I must notice the result of the meeting. Out of 22 persons including the two petitioners, 13 have voted against them. That is a substantial majority. It may be that serviing notice to the others was inconsequential because if the 9 others were even present and voted in favour of the writ petitioners, it could not have changed Patna High Court CWJC No.15857 of 2013 (4) dt.26-11-2013 8 the result in any manner. However, I do not base my finding on that. The stand of the State is, based on records, notices were sent to everybody and duly served. That being the records, stand of the petitioners cannot be accepted. Thus, so far as the writ petition, as filed by the petitioner-Pramukh that is Baidh Nath Prasad is fit to be dismissed and is dismissed as such. Interim order dated 19.08.2013 is vacated. Coming to the writ petition of Up Pramukh, the only other independent ground that he has raised is that the charges as against or in connection with the Up Pramukh are vague. He refers to the 5 charges as mentioned in the notice fixing the date of the meeting. Indeed, he has a point there but in the notice itself are appended the other two requisitions. Learned counsel for the Up Pramukh submits that if all the requisitions are taken up and seen, none of them would make any specific allegation as against the Up Pramukh. Before I deal with this aspect, I must note that Up Pramukh does not dispute the receiving of the requisition or the notice fixing the meeting. He does not dispute that both of them contained various allegations though, as per him, vague yet he chose not to participate in the meeting. On his behalf, it is Patna High Court CWJC No.15857 of 2013 (4) dt.26-11-2013 9 submitted that as against the notice, he had filed another writ petition being CWJC No 14899 of 2013 which is still pending. Unfortunately, he has not brought on record any letter written to the members or to the Executive Officer protesting that the charges were too vague to be defended. He permitted the meeting to continue. He filed a writ petition but was unable to get any stay from this Court and the meeting was held and he has lost the confidence of the House and that too by a substantial majority. In such an event on this pure technicality, I am not inclined to interfere lest people say that democratic process is being interfered by Court on pure technicalities. In other words, people may say that people, who had lost the confidence of the House, are being retained by virtue of Court orders on pure technicality. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition also. It is too dismissed. Interim order dated 22.08.2013 is vacated. M.E.H./- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)