Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 382 (PAT)

Majibur Rahman v. State Of Bihar

2009-03-05

MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and counsel for the State. 2. This Court, upon finding that the impugned notice being Annexure-3 dated 2.3.2009 issued by B.D.O., Pothia convening such special meeting for considering no confidence motion against Pramukh of Pothia Panchayat Samiti on 9.3.2009, without complying the mandatory requirement of Section 46(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act is patently illegal, would quash the same with a consequential direction that no such meeting shall be held on 9.3.2009. 3. Since this meeting had been called for on the requisition of the majority of members of Panchayat Samiti dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure-1) and such date of for holding the special meeting was fixed with the consent and approval of the Pramukh, as is also recorded in the impugned notice, this Court would now direct the Executive Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Pothia, without seeking a fresh consent/approval of the said Pramukh for fixing a fresh date of special meeting would by himself fix the next date of such meeting by specifying a clear gap of seven days leaving the date of issuance of notice as also the date of meeting. He is also directed to issue the notice of the said meeting to all the members well in advance to ensure that such meeting is held positively on or before 6th of April, 2009. In other words, the Executive Officer must issue a notice for holding such special meeting on any date on or after 1st April, 2009 but notice for this purpose must be issued by him latest by 20th of March, 2009. 4. Before parting with this case, this court must record that the impugned notice touching the core of illegality and perversity not only creates but also confirms the impression of this court the same has been deliberately issued under mala fide design so that it could be easily interfered by this Court, forestalling the motion of no confidence against Pramukh at least for one year. Times without number, this Court has been holding and directing the Executive Officer/Chief Executive Officer of Panchayat Samiti/Panchayat that a special meeting for consideration of No Confidence Motion cannot be held in absence of clear seven days notice. Times without number, this Court has been holding and directing the Executive Officer/Chief Executive Officer of Panchayat Samiti/Panchayat that a special meeting for consideration of No Confidence Motion cannot be held in absence of clear seven days notice. Reference in this connection may be to some of such following judgment of this Court namely: (i) Nagendra Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2004(1) PLJR 531 . (ii) Rambha Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2004(2) PLJR 629 . (iii) Chinta Devi vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2004(3) PLJR 654 . (IV) Sita Ram Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2004(4) PLJR 168 . (v) Anita Kumari vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2005(1) PLJR 457 . 5. It, however, appears to this Court that despite knowledge of such law, the Executive Officers, as in this case the B.D.O., Pothia, have been deliberately issuing such illegal notice. It is a serious matter and in future this Court would be ruthless if it finds that similar perfunctory notice for convening special meeting is issued by any Executive Officer of Panchayat/Panchayat Samiti either without a clear seven days interval or without enclosing the charges on which such motion for no confidence is to be considered. 6. The whole object of the public authorities/Government officials, being attached to these bodies for day to day functioning seeking enforcement of the concept of grass-root democracy by ensuring rule of law gets frustrated by such action on the part of the Executive Authorities. Such action on their part also creates an impression that either the officer is too naive or has been deliberately acting against the spirit of law. Such impertinent and irresponsible behaviour, action and order of a gazetted officer in fact by itself as a gross misconduct, making him liable for being dismissed from service. 7. In that view of the matter this Court would direct the Principal Secretary of Panchayati Raj Department to not only issue a circular for the strict compliance of requirement of law with regard to convening and holding of special meeting for considering no confidence motion against Pramukh/Up-pramukh/Mukhia, alongwith a copy of this order but also take strict disciplinary action for its breach/violation by anyone. 8. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this writ application is disposed of. 9. 8. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this writ application is disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be also given to the SC-3 for its immediate communication and strict compliance by one and all concerned.