Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 740 (PAT)

Sharvan Kumar Sah v. State of Bihar

2020-12-15

SHIVAJI PANDEY

body2020
SHIVAJI PANDEY, J.:–Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Satyabrat, AC to GP10 representing the State and Mr. Amit Srivastava along with Girish Pandey appearing on behalf of the Election Commission as also Ms. Vindhyachal Singh, representing the rest of the respondents. 2. In the present case, the short question has been raised by the petitioner that in terms of Section 46(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’), the notice called for the special meeting has not been properly acted upon as has been stated that in terms of Section 46(4) of the Act, it is incumbent on the official, in the event of refusal to call a meeting or remain idle to respond to the notice of the Panchayat members, in that circumstances, the authority will have to give a clear seven days notice which has not been done in the present case and, thus, the entire procedure is completely null and void and the notice requires interference of this Court. Section 46(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, being relevant, reads as follows: ^^46- iapk;r lfefr dh cSBd & lkèkkj.k cSBd ds fy, iwjs nl fnuksa dh uksfVl vkSj fo'ks"k cSBd ds fy, iwjs lkr fnuksa dh uksfVl] ftlesa ,slh cSBd dk le; vkSj lEikfnr fd;s tkus okys dk;Z fofufnZ"V jgsaxs] lnL;ksa ds ikl Hkst nh tk;sxh vkSj iapk;r lfefr ds dk;kZy; esa fpidk nh tk;sxhA fo'ks"k cSBd dh n'kk esa ,slh uksfVl esa ,slh cSBd ds fy, fd;s x;s fyf[kr fuosnu esa mfYyf[kr ÁLrko ;k mlesa Áfrikfnr gksus okys fo"k; 'kkfey jgsaxsA** 3. In this case, the petitioners is a Pramukh of Manihari Block, Katihar. Sixteen members of the Panchayat Samiti has given a notice dated 23.7.2018 to the Pramukh making an allegation and called for a meeting for No Confidence Motion as provided under Section 44(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. He has not responded to the notice, again the notice dated 28.7.2018 was given to the Pramukh by the members of the Panchayat Samiti, when he has given no response, in such circumstances, the Block Development Officer vide its letter contained in letter no. 1371 dated 4.8.2018 taking cognizance of the notice given by the members of the Panchayat Samiti called a special meeting of No Confidence Motion on 11.8.2018 which is the dispute in the present case. 4. 1371 dated 4.8.2018 taking cognizance of the notice given by the members of the Panchayat Samiti called a special meeting of No Confidence Motion on 11.8.2018 which is the dispute in the present case. 4. As per petitioner, it requires 7 days clear notice whereas learned counsel for the respondents submits that there will not be any illegality even if the date of issuance of notice is excluded and seventh days meeting is held, it cannot be said that any provision of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 has been violated. 5. Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, in support of his submission, has placed reliance on the judgments passed in the case of Sri Jag Narayan Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2010 (1) PLJR 837 and in the case of Geeta Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2015(1) PLJR 790 and has submitted that in that case, identical issue was raised and the Court was of the view that there must be 7 clear days notice. To understand the gamut of dispute, it is necessary to quote the relevant portion of the judgment passed in the case of Geeta Devi (supra) which reads as follows:— “10. A plain reading of the two provisions manifests that upon receipt of any requisition the Pramukh is required to fix date of special meeting within 15 days of receipt of such requisition in terms of Section 44(3)(i) of the Act after giving 7 days clear notice in between the date of issuance of notice calling for special meeting and the date so fixed, after excluding both the days as per Section 46(4) of the Act. 11. This means that if a requisition is placed before the Pramukh on the 1st day of a month, he has to hold the special meeting on or before the 16th of that month and also take care that there are 7 clear days in between the date on which he issues the notice fixing the date of special meeting and the actual date fixed.” 6. From the aforesaid provision, it appears that there must be complete 7 days notice for calling a special meeting whereas English version has used the expression “7 clear days notice”. From the aforesaid provision, it appears that there must be complete 7 days notice for calling a special meeting whereas English version has used the expression “7 clear days notice”. So, the question is in what manner “iwjs lkr fnuksa dh uksfVl” will be construed, whether it will be translated as “7 clear days notice” or it will be complete seven day notice. It will not make any situational change as in both situation, the gap of seven days is required as both are synonymous to each other as ‘complete’ means there must be a complete period and only then the action will be taken and, therefore, the clear 7 days notice in English version gives the same meaning as that of Hindi version. So, in my opinion, both the aforesaid judgments have already interpreted the provision in which it has been decided that there must be 7 days clear notice and there is no possibility to differ with those judgments. 7. In that view of the matter, the notice dated 4.8.2018 calling the special meeting cannot survive and the same is quashed and as this Court has passed the order for quashing the aforesaid notice dated 4.8.2018, in such circumstances, the subsequent action will also be null and void and, as such, the result of the special meeting is also quashed with a liberty to the respondents to take action in accordance with law. 8. In the result, this writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above.