Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1279 (PAT)

Balchand Rajbansi v. State Of Bihar

2009-10-08

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioners are before this High Court seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to convene a special meeting for debtaing a no confidence motion, based on the requisition contained in Annexure-t. They are aggrieved by the communication dated 20.8.2009 contained in Annexure-2 issued by the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Nawada, where he has refused to convene the meeting on the ground that in terms of Section 44(3) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the two years period of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh has not lapsed since they have been put in place. 2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that this kind of rejection of their no confidence motion is misplaced because the authorities have neither the power nor the correct understanding of law on this issue. He submits that if earlier no confidence motion based on which the present Pramukh was elected has been carried out more than a year ago then a second no confidence motion can be put in motion. 3. The provisions relating to removal of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh is contained in Section 44 of the Act. In this regard some of the provisions need to be reproduced for ready reference and proper interpretation. Section 44{3){i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) are relevant and are reproduced hereinbelow: 44(3)(i) 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 Samiti at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. The requisition for such a special meeting shall be presented to the Pramukh in writing with a copy to the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, by not less than one third of the total number of members elected directly from the territorial constituencies of the Panchayat Samiti. The Executive Officer shall immediately bring the requisition to the notice of the Pramukh. The Pramukh shall convene such meeting on a date falling within 15 days of such requisition. If the Pramukh fails to call the special meeting, the Up-Pramukh or one third of the total number of directly elected members may fix a date for such meeting and require the Executive Officer to give notice to the members and to take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting. If the Pramukh fails to call the special meeting, the Up-Pramukh or one third of the total number of directly elected members may fix a date for such meeting 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 Executive Officer shall necessarily issue such notice in time and convene the meeting. No such meeting shall be postponed once the notice for the same has been issued. No quorum shall be required for the special meeting convened to discuss no confidence motion. (ii) No confidence motion shall not be moved against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh within the first two year period of their tenure. (iii) If the motion of no confidence brought against the Pramukh or the Up- Pramukh or both is once rejected, no fresh motion of no confidence against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh or both, as the case may be shall be brought before the Panchyat Samtti within a period of one year from the date of such rejection of the motion. (iv) No confidence motion against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh or both, as the case may be, shall not be brought during the last six months of the term of the no confidence motion shall not be moved against the Pramukh or the Up- Pramukh as mentioned in Section 39(1) of this Act. A reading of the provision of Section 44(3)(ii) would indicate that a no confidence motion cannot be moved against a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh within the first two years period of their (emphasis mine) tenure. A plain reading of such a provision would mean that whenever a Pramukh or Up- Pramukh is elected to the post in question then for the first two years of their being in office no no-confidence motion can be brought against them. 4. Contention of the petitioners is that clause (ii) of Section 44(3) only relates to the first election of the first Pramukh or Up- Pramukh thereafter it is free for all and every year a no confidence motion can be brought against the elected persons. 5. The Court has great reservation in giving an interpretation to such a submission because that would be doing violations to the provisions as well as the words which are emphatic in nature in the provisions mentioned above. 6. 5. The Court has great reservation in giving an interpretation to such a submission because that would be doing violations to the provisions as well as the words which are emphatic in nature in the provisions mentioned above. 6. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Nawada has done no wrong in not entertaining the no confidence motion because admittedly the last Pramukh was elected on 11.8.2008 when the first Pramukh was removed in a vote of no confidence. The present requisition has come on 14.8.2009, which is in breach of Section 44(3)(ii). 7. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed.