Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 346 (PAT)

Uma Shanker Singh v. State of Bihar

2004-03-25

body2004
JUDGMENT Chandramauli kr. Prasad, J 1. This application has been filed for quashing the notice dated 23.10.2003 issued by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Maharajganj communicating the members that the special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner shall be held on 21.10.2003. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners are elected Parmukh and Up Parmukh of Panchayat Samiti, Maharajganj. One third members of the Panchayat Samiti gave notice to the Parmukh for holding a special meeting to consider the no confidence motion brought against him and Up Parmukh Ultimately when no meeting was held 1/3rd members of the Panchayat Samiti 21.10.2003 held the meeting and directed the Executive Officer to issue notice fixing 4.11.2003 as the date to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner. Meeting as directed was held and the motion of no confidence has been passed against the petitioner. It is the stand of the petitioner that the special meeting to consider the no confidence motion was convened by the Executive Officer who had no authority to do the same and as such motion of no confidence passed against the petitioner is illegal in the eye of law. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case Hare Ram Acharya Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2002 (4) PLJR 640 ) and my attention has been drawn to paragraphs 8 and 10 of the judgment which reads as follows : "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 while process as a result of which the meeting itself must be held to have been vitiated along with the resolution adopted in that meeting." "10. I am unable to agree. This is not a matter in which the court may feel persuaded to reject the petitioner's grievance on the plea of substantial compliance with the provisions. I am unable to agree. This is not a matter in which the court may feel persuaded to reject the petitioner's 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." 3. J.C. to S.C. X and Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh apearing on behalf of the State and respondents 5 to 20 however contend that the very assumption of the petitioner that the meeting was convened by the Executive Officer is erroneous on fact and as such the submission made on behalf of the petitioner has no legs to stand. 4. The rival submission necessitates examination of the fact as to whether the Executive Officer had convened the meeting or he had simply issued the notice. As stated earlier, it is the stand of the petitioner that the Executive Officer had convened the meeting. It that be so, there is no difficulty in accepting the submission of the petitioner that he had no authority to do the same and as such decision taken in such a meeting shall be vitiated in the eye of law. However, in the present case the very assumption of the petitioner that the meeting was convened by the Executive Officer is erroneous on fact. It seems that Parmukh and Up Parmukh did not convene the meeting. Thereafter 18 members sat together on 21.10.2003 and fixed 4.12.2003 as the date for holding the special meeting to consider the no confidence motion and directed the Executive Officer to issue the notice. In the light of the said decision of one third members the Executive officer had issued the notice which he was obliged to do under Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. In the light of the said decision of one third members the Executive officer had issued the notice which he was obliged to do under Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. Said provision clearly contemplates that if Parmukh or Up Parmukh fails to call a special meeting, one third of the total number of members may call the special meeting and request the Executive Officer to give notice to the members. It is in exercise of the said power that one third members have requested the Executive Officer to give notice and in pursuance thereof he had given the notice and the meeting was held. Thus it cannot be held that the meeting was convened by the Executive Officer. 5. To put the record straight, Mr. Mishra contends that in fact the notice was never given to the petitioner and their signatures are forged. I am of the opinion that in face of the pleading of the party, this Court cannot adjudicate this question. As stated earlier one third of the members have requested the Executive Officer to convene the meeting and in the meeting so convened motion of no confidence has been passed by required majority which does not calf for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 6. In the result, I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed with cost which I assess at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to be paid by the petitioner to respondents 5 to 20.