Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 11 (PAT)

Gajendra Narayan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-01-03

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2006
Judgment Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the decision to convene the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 15th of July, 2005 for considering the motion of no confidence against the petitioner, who happens to be the Pramukh of Supaul, Panchayat Samiti. During the pendency of the application such a meeting was held and a motion of no confidence has been carried out against the petitioner and the petitioners further prayer is to quash the said resolution. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as the Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Supaul. Earlier a motion of no confidence was passed against him on 16.10.2003 and on a challenge being made by the petitioner in a writ application filed before this Court CWJC No. 10633 of 2003 Gajendra Narayan Singh V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. this Court went into its validity and by order dated 10.11.2004 found that the motion passed against the petitioner is bad in law and accordingly quashed the same. However a fresh requisition dated 28.4.2005 was made requesting the petitioner for convening the special meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against him. Petitioner did not convene the meeting on the ground that motion of no confidence can be brought only after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the earlier motion was considered and accordingly by minute dated 18.5.2005, rejected the request. However, the Executive Officer issued notice dated 4.7.2005 to all the members of the Panchayat Samiti informing them that a special meeting has been called by Up-pramukh on 15.7,2005 for consideration of the no confidence motion against the petitioner. Meeting as decided was held on 15.7.2005, which was adjourned to 22.7.2005 on account of lack of quorum and on that date the motion of no confidence has been carried out against the petitioner. 3. Mr. Dhrub Narain, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner having been rejected on 16.10.2003, no fresh motion of no confidence against the petitioner can be brought within a period of one year from the date of such rejection of the motion. 3. Mr. Dhrub Narain, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner having been rejected on 16.10.2003, no fresh motion of no confidence against the petitioner can be brought within a period of one year from the date of such rejection of the motion. He points out that the earlier motion was rejected on 16.10.2003, whereas the fresh requisition was made on 28.4.2005 and the meeting to consider the no confidence motion was fixed on 15.7.2005 which was ultimately carried out on 22.7.2005. 4. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6 contends that the whole assumption of the petitioner that the meeting to consider the no confidence motion was convened within one year from the date of the rejection of the earlier motion is misconceived on fact. Rival submission necessitates examination of sec. 42 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 . Same reads as follows :- 42, Resignation or Removal of Pramukh and Up- Pramukh .- *** *** **** (5) If the motion of no confidence brought against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh or both is once rejected, no furesh motion of no confidence against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh or both as the case may be shall be brought before the Panchayat Samiti within a period of one year from the date of such rejection of the motion. *** *** **** 5. From the plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that fresh motion of no confidence against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh or both as the case may be cannot be brought before the Panchayat Samiti within a period of one year from the date of such rejection of the motion. Therefore for application of Sec. 42(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 , hereinafter referred to as the Act, rejection of motion is sine qua non. Here in the present case in fact a motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioner and on a challenge being made by the petitioner in an application filed before this Court which was registered as CWJC No. 10633 of 2003 Gajendra Narayan Singh V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. Here in the present case in fact a motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioner and on a challenge being made by the petitioner in an application filed before this Court which was registered as CWJC No. 10633 of 2003 Gajendra Narayan Singh V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. this Court by order dated 10.11.2004 quashed the motion, not on the ground of lack of requisite majority but on the ground that the meeting was not convened according to law. This Court while doing so observed as follows :- As no notice was served upon the petitioner the respondent Up-Pramukh or any one else could not convene the meeting. If the meeting was illegal and was summoned and convened without authority or jurisdiction then any resolution passed in the said meeting would also be illegal and without jurisdiction. The motion of no confidence carried in the said meeting for the reasons aforesaid deserves to and is accordingly quashed. 6. Hence, it cannot be said that the motion of no confidence was rejected earlier and a fresh motion has been brought within a period of one year from the date of the rejection of the earlier motion. Thus the submission of Mr. Narain that motion of no confidence has been brought and carried out within a period of one year from the date of rejection of the earlier motion is untenable in law and accordingly, I reject his submission. 7. Mr. Narain, then contends that quashing of the no confidence motion carried out against the petitioner by this Court, in sum and substance means rejection of the no confidence motion which would attract the provision of sec. 42(5) of the Act. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Narain. In my opinion, quashing of the no confidence motion carried out against the Pramukh cannot be construed as rejection of the no confidence motion to attract the provision of sec. 42(5) of the Act. As stated earlier the motion of no confidence in fact was carried out against the petitioner but the same was quashed by this Court on the ground that meeting was not properly convened. It was not quashed on the ground that the required majority did not vote in favour of the no confidence motion. 42(5) of the Act. As stated earlier the motion of no confidence in fact was carried out against the petitioner but the same was quashed by this Court on the ground that meeting was not properly convened. It was not quashed on the ground that the required majority did not vote in favour of the no confidence motion. There may be a case in which the Court may find that no confidence motion has not been carried out by the required majority, then in that case one may contend that the motion of no confidence has been rejected but in the case in which motion has been carried out by the required majority but has been quashed on ground other than lack of required majority, same would not amount to rejection of the no confidence motion to attract the rigours of sec. 42(5) of the Act. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the motion of no confidence passed against the petitioner cannot be said to be in breach of sec. 42(5) of the Act. 8. In the result, I do not find any merit on the application and it is dismissed with cost to be paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 6, which I assess at Rs. 1000.00 (one thousand).