Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1106 (PAT)

Hare Ram Acharya v. State Of Bihar

2002-10-10

AFTAB ALAM

body2002
Judgment 1. The petitioner in this case was Pramukh of Biroul Panchayat Samity in the district of Darbhanga. He seeks to challenge the resolution, dated 24.4.2002 (Annexure-18) by which the Panchayat Samity, in its meeting held on that date, adopted, by majority, the vote of no confidence against him, leading to his removal from the office of Pramukh. 2. The facts of the case are brief and simple. The petitioner was elected as Pramukh of the Panchyat Samity in June, 2001. On 11.4.2002, 26 members of the Panchayat Samity addressed a written requisition (Annexure-6) to the District Magistrate, Darbhanga for holding a special meeting of the Samiti to consider the vote of no confidence against the Pramukh on charges that were stated in the requisition. At the bottom of the requisition letter it was indicated that its copies were sent to the Subdivisional Officer, Beroul, the Dy. Development Commissioner, Darbhanga, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Darbhanga, the Block Development Officer, Biroul and also to the petitioner, the Pramukh of the Samity. A copy of the requisition letter was forwarded to the petitioner by the Block Development Officer, Biraul along with his letter, dated 13.4.2002 (Annexure-7) stating that it was for information and necessary action and with a view that he may beable to present his defence in the meeting of the Samiti. Two days later the Subdivisional Officer, Biraul issued an order under his memo no.345, dated 15.4.2002 (Annexure-9). In this order it was stated that 26 members of the Samiti had asked to call an emergent meeting of the Samiti for presenting a vote of no-confidence against the Pramukh and accordingly the Block Development Officer was directed to give notice to the members, summoning an emergent meeting of the Samiti on 23.4.2002. In pursuance of the direction given to him by the Subdivisional Officer, the Block Development Officer issued notices under his memo no. 504, dated 16.4.2002 fixing the special meeting of the Samiti on 24.4.2002. In the meeting thus held on 24.4.2002, 35 members were present; 19 members voted in favour and 16 in opposition of the motion of no confidence. The motion was thus passed by a majority vote, leading to the petitioners removal from office. 3. According to the petitioner he received the notice of the meeting on 24.4.2002, the very day on which the meeting was held. The motion was thus passed by a majority vote, leading to the petitioners removal from office. 3. According to the petitioner he received the notice of the meeting on 24.4.2002, the very day on which the meeting was held. In support of this averment reference is made to the peon-book, a photo copy of the relevant extracts from which is at Annexure-16. 4. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the manner in which the meeting of the Samiti was held to pass the vote of no-confidence was completely foreign to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Mr. Jha submitted that it was not a legal meeting but an official meeting in the sense that it was not held in the manner provided for in law but was summoned on the direction of the District Magistrate and the Subdivisional Officer who have no authority in the matter. He also submitted that the meeting was further bad as it was held without giving seven clear days notice to the petitioner. 5. I find substance in the submissions made by Mr. Jha. 6. The provisions for the removal of the Pramukh are contained in section 42 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 . Subsection (3) of section 42, which is relevant for the present, is as follows: (3) A Pramukh/Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of the total number of elected members of the Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose." 7. The mode and manner of convening a meeting of the Panchayat Samity is provided in section 44. Sub-section (3) of section 44 in so far as relevant for the present is as follows : "(3).......The Pramukh may, whenever he thinks fit, shall, upon the written request of not less than one-third of the total number of members and on a date within fifteen days from the receipt of such request call a special meeting. Such request shall specify the object for which the meeting is proposed to be called. If the Pramukh fails to call a special meeting. Such request shall specify the object for which the meeting is proposed to be called. If the Pramukh fails to call a special meeting. the Up-Pramukh or one-third of the total number of members may call the special meeting for a day not more than fifteen days after presentation of such request and require the Executive Officer to give notice to the members and to take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting." (emphasis added). It is thus to be seen that the District Magistrate or the Subdivisional Officer have no role to play in calling a special meeting of the Panchayat Samity and in the legislative scheme a requisition for summoning a special meeting of the Samiti is to be made directly to the Pramukh. In case the Pramukh does not call the meeting, being disinclined to face a vote of no-confidence, as it is seen in a number of cases, the Up-Pramukh may call the meeting and if he too does not oblige then it is open to the requisite number of members (one-third of the total number of members of the Samity) to themselves fix the date of the meeting and require the Executive Officer (the B.D.O.) to give notice of the meeting to the members and to take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting. In that situation, unless there is any other legal bar, the Block Development Officer will be legally obliged to act upon the requisition, convene the meeting on the date fixed by the requisite number of members, give notice of the meeting to the members and take all actions as may be necessary for convening the meeting. He will discharge his duty under the Act as the Executive Officer of the Samiti without asking for or following the directions of his superiors in the district administration. The Samity is thus to act on its own as a truly democratic body on the ground level and its members are not to view themselves as dependent upon the District Magistrate or the Subdivisional Officer for running the affairs of the Samity. 8 Unfortunately in this case the members demanding a special meeting overlooked this basic and cardinal fact and instead of giving the requisition to the Pramukh and requiring him to summon the meeting approached the District Magistrate and the meeting was held on his direction. 8 Unfortunately in this case the members demanding a special meeting overlooked this basic and cardinal fact and instead of giving the requisition to the Pramukh and requiring him to summon the meeting approached the District Magistrate and the meeting was held on his direction. This to my mind introduced a basic flaw in the whole process as a result of which the meeting itself must be held to have been vitiated alongwith the resolution adopted in that meeting. 9. Mr. Nawal Kishore Agarwal, Sr. Advocate appearing for the contesting private respondent submitted that though the requisition for the special meeting was addressed to the District Magistrate, a copy of it was also sent to the petitioner. A copy of the requisition letter was also forwarded to the petitioner by the Block Development Officer. Mr. Agarwal referred to some annexures to show that the petitioner was also aware that the special meeting was being convened on 24.4.2002. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was all along aware of the developments and he had himself participated in the meeting and it was therefore no longer open to him to challenge the resolution adopted in the meeting on the ground that the meeting was not convened in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 10. I am unable to agree. This is not a matter in which the court may feel pursuaded to reject the petitioners grievance on the plea of substantial compliance with the provisions. The proper functioning of the ground level democratic bodies is too important to be disregarded on the plea of substantial compliance with the provisions and for the reason that the petitioner was aware of the developments, at least by means other than as provided in law. A tendency to involve the Government officials and to act on the basis of their directions, if allowed unchecked, is bound to undermine the basic democratic character of these bodies. Any unauthorised interference in their affairs must, therefore, be checked and curbed at the outset. 11. In the light of the discussions made above, it must be held that both the meeting of the Samity and the resolution adopted in that meeting were without any sanction of law. The impugned resolution is accordingly set aside. 12. Any unauthorised interference in their affairs must, therefore, be checked and curbed at the outset. 11. In the light of the discussions made above, it must be held that both the meeting of the Samity and the resolution adopted in that meeting were without any sanction of law. The impugned resolution is accordingly set aside. 12. It will, however, be open to the members of the Samity to proceed against the Pramukh and to make a requisition to him for summoning a special meeting as provided under section 44 of the Act and if the members of the Samiti proceed in that regard this judgment and order will not stand in their way. 13. This writ petition stands allowed with the above observations but with no order as to costs.