Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 544 (PAT)

Indra Kumar Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar

2003-05-07

R.S.GARG

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. On 15.1.2002 certain elected members of the Nalanda District Board made a request to the Adhyaksh that as they have lost their confidence, a meeting to consider the no-confidence be requisitioned. The Adhyaksh feeling aggrieved by the same filed a title suit no.25 of 2002 in the Court of Sub-Judge-l Nalanda Biharsharif challenging the validity of the motion and convening the meeting. In the said suit notices were issued to the parties. The members raised various pleas but ultimately under order dated 5.2.2002 the learned Sub-Judge directed that the status quo should be maintained. He further directed that the defendants are directed to maintain status quo till further orders. The stay order was later on vacated by the very same Judge and being aggrieved by the said order the plaintiffs have preferred a revision petition before this Court in which an interim order has been granted in favour of the plaintiff and operation of the order dated 26.2.2003 (order vacating injunction) has been stayed. 3. During the pendency of the said title suit, on 25.9.2002, vide Annexure certain members made yet another move against the Adhyaksh saying that they have lost confidence. The Adhyaksh being obsessed with his authority and the order passed in the civil suit in his favour rejected the application observing that there was no need to convene the meeting to consider no-confidence motion dated 25.9.2002. The respondent no.7, i.e. Vice-President of the District Board exercising his powers under section 68(4) directed that a meeting be convened to consider no-confidence motion dated 25.9.2002. The Deputy Development Commissioner appeared on the scene and observed that the date of the meeting can be fixed by the Collector himself and none else. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Collector, who in his turn, directed that the Vice-President was competent to convene the meeting in accordance with section 68(4). As the meeting is not being convened by the concerned authority despite direction of the Vice-President, the petitioner has come to this Court seeking a mandamus against the authority to fix the date for convening the meeting. 4. As the meeting is not being convened by the concerned authority despite direction of the Vice-President, the petitioner has come to this Court seeking a mandamus against the authority to fix the date for convening the meeting. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing strong reliance on sub-section 4 of section 68 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 submitted that in case of failure of Adhyaksh to convene a meeting, the District Magistrate is obliged to convene the meeting in the same manner and the meeting has to be presided by him. He submits that the order of status quo granted in the suit or the interim order granted by the High Court would not affect the subsequent motion of no-confidence because the suit was to challenge the no-confidence motion dated 15.1.2002 and not the subsequent motion. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that from the very language of the interim order (which was later on vacated), it would clearly appear that till disposal of the suit the parties are required to maintain status quo and in that view of the matter none can call for a meeting to consider the question of non-confidence. According to him, so long as the interim order is in his favour and the effect and operation of the subsequent order vacating the injunction stands suspended the District Magistrate cannot direct convening of the meeting. According to him, the meeting cannot be convened. 6. Undisputedly, a title suit is to be brought on a cause of action. The words cause of action have not been defined any where but have been interpreted to mean the bundle of facts persuading a particular person to appear before a particular court of competent jurisdiction, raise his grievances and pray for particular relief, Undisputedly, the title suit no.25 of 2002 pending before the Sub-Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif was in relation to the no-confidence motion dated 15.1.2002. If the cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff on 15.1.2002 and the Court was considering the question relating to the said cause of action and was granting relief in favour of the plaintiff in relation to the very same cause of action then by no stretch of imgination it can be held that the order passed by the Court would be in relation to a future action. If the cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff was not subsequent to 15.1.2002 then under the protection of the interim order granted by the Civil Court the Adhyaksh cannot be allowed to say that the cause of action being continuous and subsisting the meeting to consider the no-confidence motion dated 25.9.2002 cannot be held. I have already quoted the language of the said order. The said order simply says that the status quo should be maintained. The status quo was in relation to the said meeting and the letter dated 15.1.2002 (the notice be declared illegal. !f that was the relief then nothing beyond that can be given to the plaintiff in the said suit. Once the Court granted injunction, and the meeting fixed under the notice dated 25.1.2002 has passed virtually the suit has served its purpose. It cannot go beyond that. The Adhyaksh himself was unjustified in interpreting the order in his favour. He was obliged to convene the meeting and if he failed to convene the meeting then under the law as provided under section 68(4) the District Magistrate/Collector is obliged to direct convening of the meeting. The District Magistrate could not direct that the Vice-President himself can convene the meeting nor the D.D.C. could interfere in the matter simply to protect the President. 7. The petition deserves to and is accordingly allowed. It is hereby directed that within one week of the receipt/submission of a copy of this order, the District Magistrate shall fix a date for convening the meeting to consider no-confidence motion dated 25.9.2002 and shall also be obliged to preside the meeting in accordance with section 68(4) of the Act. The Collector shall see that the notices are issued right in time so that no further grievances are raised by anybody that notices are not issued in time or were not served upon the members constituting the District Board right in time.