Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 329 (PAT)

Ajay Prasad @ Ajay Paswan v. State of Bihar

2015-02-18

JYOTI SARAN

body2015
ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, learned Assisting Counsel to Government Pleader No.21 for the State. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Kaler in the district of Arwal is not convening the special meeting pursuant to the requisition filed by the requisitionists on 3.9.2014 under section 44(3) (i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), a copy of which is placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 3. Although the provision underlying section 44(3) (i) of ‘the Act’ vests legal right in the requisitionists to proceed in the matter in case the Pramukh does not fix the date of special meeting within the period prescribed under section 44(3) read with section 46(4) of ‘the Act’ but contesting the claim of the petitioner a counter affidavit has been filed by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, respondent no.6 and in paragraphs 6 and 7 it has been stated that the present Pramukh was removed from his post by a no confidence motion passed on 23.7.2013 but he got re-elected subsequently on 14.8.2013. Referring to the stand of the Executive Officer it is submitted by Mr. Jha, that since the respondent no.7 stands re-elected as a Pramukh on 14.8.2013 hence he stands protected under section 44(3)(ii) of ‘the Act’ inasmuch as a no confidence motion cannot be moved within first two years of the tenure. He submits that since the re-election has taken place on 14.8.2013, the requisition filed on 3.9.2014 i.e. within one year of the re-election as well as of his current tenure as Pramukh it did not require to be processed any further. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the circumstances existing as well as the statutory provisions underlying ‘the Act’ this Court is of the opinion that the no confidence motion so moved by the petitioner along with other requisitionists within one year of the current tenure of the Pramukh who got re-elected on 14.8.2013 is without sanction of law and has rightly not been processed. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is disposed of.