Radhe Raman S/o Shri Suryadeo Paswan v. State Of Bihar
2010-03-03
KISHORE K.MANDAL, S.K.KATRIAR
body2010
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGEMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the notice bearing No. 07 (M), dated 16.7.2008, (Annexure-6), issued under the signature of respondent No. 4 (The Block Development Officer, Phoolwari Sahrif, District-Patna), whereby notice has been issued to the members of the Panchayat Samiti, Phoolwari Sharif, that a meeting of the Panchayat has been convened on 24.7.2008 to consider no-confidence motion against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat for misuse of powers, gross involvement in corruption, etc. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. A Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 3.2.2010, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12611 of 2008 (Meema Yadav and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.), has held as follows: 17. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings, the impugned notices must be held to be void because they admittedly do not contain any reasons/charges which is required to be mentioned in the notice as per law noticed above. Hence, the notices and the consequent meetings are found to be against law. As a result, the notices shall stand quashed. Any decision taken in the meeting held on the basis of impugned notices shall also stand quashed. The writ petitions accordingly stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. It appears from a perusal of the impugned notice that the same does state the reason(s)/charge(s) against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh for which notice for no-confidence motion has been issued and satisfies the requirement of law enunciated in the judgment of the Division Bench. It further appears that, as per the requisition, the meeting did take place on 24.7.2008, on which date no-confidence motion was passed against the concerned persons as a result of which they ceased to hold office. It is of equal importance that elections have already taken place, new office bearers have been elected, and they occupy the offices. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. The impugned notice dated 16.7.2008 is hereby 3 The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.