Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 383 (PAT)

Kanhaiya Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-04-03

R.S.GARG

body2003
Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner holding the office of Pramukh was served with a no confidence motion and was requested to convene the meeting. The petitioner did not convene the meeting within 15 days as provided u/s. 44(3) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, therefore, the Block Development Officer sought for some clarification from the higher authorities and after receiving the explanations directed that the meeting can be convened. The meeting was accordingly convened. The motion was put to test and the petitioner lost 16/5. Being aggrieved by the requisition of the meeting and carrying of the motion the petitioner has come to this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in accordance with the provisions of sec. 44(3) on refusal of the Pramukh to convene the meeting the one-third members are entitled to requisition the meeting but that can not do so after period of 15 days is over. He submits that the meeting in question was held/convened beyond the statutory period, therefore, the meeting was illegal and simultaneously every and any resolution passed in the said resolution was also illegal. sec. 44 (3) reads as under : "Sec. 44(3) the date, of the first meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, after its constitution shall be fixed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who shall preside at such meeting and date of each subsequent orderary meeting shall be fixed at the previous meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, provided that the Pramukh may for sufficient reasons, after the day of the meeting to a subsequent date. 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, 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." 4. According to sec. According to sec. 44(3) the Pramukh is obliged and duty bound to requisition a meeting within 15 days from the receipt of a request from not less than one-third of the total number of members. The authority given to the Pramukh is plain and simple. After submitting a motion to him or making a request to him, the members will have to wait for 15 days because the law provides that the Pramukh can convene a meeting within 15 days. sec. 44(3) further says that if Pramukh fails to call a special meeting, the Up-Pramukh or one-third of the total number of the members may call the special meeting for day not more than 15 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. The petitioner wants to take advantage of the second phrase used in sec. 44(3). According to him on failure of a Pramukh to requisition/convene a meeting the Up-Pramukh or the members (applicant) may requisition a meeting but they cannot requisition the same beyond 15 days of the request. It appears that sec. 44(3) is not happily worded so far as it relates to authority of the Up-Pramukh or one-third of the members is concerned. If 15 days time from the date of the receipt of the requisition is given to the Pramukh and on his failure alone the Up-Pramukh or the applicants can requisition the meeting then it cannot be done within 15 days from the date of the request, because that period would stand lapsed and would be within the jurisdiction of the Pramukh. 5. Even otherwise from the scheme of the Act it would clearly appear that to applicants making the request to convene the meeting the period has been fixed. It would be too much to say that a motion which was validly moved would lapse simply because somebody or the other does not requisition a meeting with in 15 days. In a democratic set-up of a society when a person is required to prove his majority to hold the office then he cannot say that if the meeting is not held within 15 days the motion of no confidence would lapse and he would be presumed to be in majority. In a democratic set-up of a society when a person is required to prove his majority to hold the office then he cannot say that if the meeting is not held within 15 days the motion of no confidence would lapse and he would be presumed to be in majority. In the present case the petitioner has lost 5/16 which would mean that he does not have even the one-fourth strength with him. The petition deserves to and is accordingly dismissed.