Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 724 (PAT)

Usha Devi v. State of Bihar

2014-07-01

I.A.ANSARI, SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2014
ORDER 1. The appellant herein was elected to the Office of the Pramukh of Vaishali Block Panchayat Samiti (in short, the Panchayat Samiti), on 24.06.2011. A special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti was held, on 23.07.2013, where no confidence motion against the appellant was put to vote and out of 23 members of the Panchayat Samiti, as many as 17 members voted, in favour of the no confidence motion, with the appellant absented herself from attending the said special meeting. 2. Aggrieved by the outcome of the said special meeting, the present appellant filed a writ petition, which gave rise to C.W.J.C. No. 15437 of 2013. 3. Having considered the fact that the appellant had not raised any issue with regard to the manner in which the notice, dated 13.07.2013, came to be issued by the Executive Officer, convening the said special meeting, but contended that the notice, in question, did not state reasons or charges nor enclosed any copy of the requisition and, hence, the notice, issued under Section 44(3)(v) of Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, was bad in law, a learned single Judge of this Court passed an order, on 15.05.2014, in the writ petition, setting aside and quashing the proceeding of the special meeting held on 23.07.2013, whereunder the present appellant stood removed from the Office of the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti in terms of the resolution passed in the said special meeting, and, thereafter, observed, held and directed as under:- "Since this Court interfered with the notice and the proceeding of the special meeting on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 44(3)(v) of the Act, which has resulted in holding on the elected post of Pramukh by the petitioner, who seemingly does not carry the confidence of the majority Members of the house and as such, this Court directs the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti to issue fresh notice on the basis of requisition already filed by the required number of elected members strictly complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act and convene the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti enabling the Members of the Panchayat Samiti to express their confidence or want of confidence in the petitioner. The Executive Officer shall ensure that such special meeting is convened within three weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the said respondent." 4. The only question raised before us by Mr. Mangalam, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that in terms of the scheme of no confidence motion, as envisaged by Section 44 of Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, an Executive Officer does not have the power to decide the date of the special meeting and when such a power is not vested by the statute in the Executive Officer, a Writ Court could not have validly directed the Executive Officer to choose the date for holding the special meeting and convene the meeting accordingly. 5. Resisting the appeal, it has been submitted, on behalf of the respondents, that requisition was given, on 21.05.2014, to the Executive Officer to convene the special meeting and it is upon such requisition that the special meeting has already been held on 25.06.2014 and out of 23 members of the Panchayat Samiti, as many as 16 have expressed their no confidence in the appellant and, hence, the appellant stands removed and this appeal may, therefore, be dismissed as having become infructuous. 6. 6. While considering the rival submissions made before us, it needs to be noted that under Section 44(3) of Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution, expressing want of confidence in him or her, is passed by a majority of the total number of elected members of the Panchayat Samiti at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and 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, whereupon the Executive Officer shall, immediately, bring the requisition to the notice of the Pramukh and the Pramukh shall, then, convene such meeting on a date falling within 15 days of such requisition and 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 and, then, the Executive Officer shall necessarily issue such a notice in time and convene the meeting. Sub-section (3) of Section 44 of Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, also lays down that no such special meeting shall be postponed once the notice for the same has been issued and no quorum shall be required for the special meeting convened to discuss no confidence motion. 7. Sub-section (3) of Section 44 of Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, also lays down that no such special meeting shall be postponed once the notice for the same has been issued and no quorum shall be required for the special meeting convened to discuss no confidence motion. 7. From a bare reading of what Section 44(3) of Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 conveys, it becomes clear that when requisition for a special meeting is presented to a Pramukh, it is the Pramukh, who has to decide the date of the special meeting and in terms of the decision so taken by the Pramukh, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti is required to issue notice and when the Pramukh fails to convene the meeting within 15 days of such requisition, one third of the total number of the directly elected members of the Panchayat Samiti is vested with a right to fix a date of such special meeting and require the Executive Officer to give a notice accordingly to the members and take such action as may be necessary to convene the special meeting, whereupon the Executive Officer shall issue necessary notice. 8. It further follows from what Section 44(3) of Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, embodies is that a notice of special meeting may be issued in two different and distinct circumstances, namely, (i) when the Pramukh takes a decision, in terms of Section 44 of Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, to convene the special meeting or (ii) on the failure on the part of the Pramukh to convene the meeting within 15 days of such requisition, 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 take such action as may be necessary to convene the special meeting. 9. In neither case, therefore, the Executive Officer is vested with the power to choose the date of holding the special meeting, the power to select the date of holding of the special meeting has to be exercised either by the Pramukh or by one third of the directly elected members of the Panchayat Samiti as indicated hereinbefore. 10. 9. In neither case, therefore, the Executive Officer is vested with the power to choose the date of holding the special meeting, the power to select the date of holding of the special meeting has to be exercised either by the Pramukh or by one third of the directly elected members of the Panchayat Samiti as indicated hereinbefore. 10. In the circumstances aforementioned, we do not find that there was any impediment, on the part of the learned single Judge, to direct the Executive Officer to convene the special meeting, but to choose a date could not have been left to the Executive Officer and ought to have been in terms of the decision of the requisitionists. To this extent, the impugned order, dated 15.05.2014, suffers from infirmity of the law and cannot be sustained. 11. Considering the fact that pursuant to the order, dated 15.05.2014, which has been held to be infirm, the special meeting has now, been held, on 25.06.2014, pursuant to the notice issued by the Executive Officer, it logically follows that the proceedings of the said special meeting must be treated as illegal, the same cannot survive and deserve to be interfered with. 12. We may also point out that while declining to grant stay the notice convening of the special meeting on 25.06.2014, this Court, in its order, dated 02.06.2014, had clearly observed, it goes without saying that any decision taken in the meeting shall always remain subject to final result of the appeal and hence, we affirm that the since proceedings of the special meeting, in question, held on 25.06.2014, suffer from the infirmity of law, which we have pointed out above, the proceedings of the special meeting cannot survive, must be interfered with and set aside. 13. Having arrived at the conclusion, as indicated above, we have asked the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the requisitionists, to suggest a date for calling a special meeting and it has been proposed by them that the special meeting may be held on 12th July, 2014. In fact, to the proposal so made, even Mr. Mangalam, learned Counsel for the appellant, does not disagree. 14. In fact, to the proposal so made, even Mr. Mangalam, learned Counsel for the appellant, does not disagree. 14. In the light of the observations made, conclusions reached and the directions given, as stated above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order, dated 15.05.2014, is set aside to the extent as indicated above and, in consequence thereof, the proceeding of the special meeting, held on 25.06.2014, are hereby set aside and directed to be treated as non-est in law. 15. Considering the matter in its entirely and in the interest of justice, it is directed that the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti shall convene a special meeting (as required by the private respondents herein and agreed to by the appellant) on 12.07.2014 and the outcome of the special meeting shall govern further rights and obligations of the parties concerned.