Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 106 (PAT)

Sangeeta Devi v. State of Bihar

2024-01-23

PURNENDU SINGH

body2024
ORDER Heard Mr. Waliur Rahman along with Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Pd. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 6-10 and Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned GP-2 appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition is aggrieved by the requisition dated 02.01.2024, submitted by five Panchayat Samiti Members for holding of the special meeting and for quashing the Letter No.05, dated 03.01.2024 in which a request has been made to convey the Special Meeting of the Block Panchayat Samiti to consider the ‘no confidence motion’ against the petitioner and for stay of the Special Meeting dated 16.01.2024. It is contended by Mr. Waliur Rahman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that allegations are not sustainable and requisition has been called by a group of elected members of the committee to topple the petitioner on frivolous charges. 3. In the present case, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, bringing on record a letter no.117/01 dated 02.01.2024, under the signature of the Pramukh, who is the petitioner of the present writ petition. It has been informed in the said letter that in accordance with the provision under Section 44(3) of the Act, a special meeting was scheduled to be held on 16.01.2024 at 11.00 AM in the meeting hall and information to that respect was to be given to all the interested persons. 4. Mr. Rajesh Pd. Choudhary, learned counsel tendered his appearance on behalf of the respondents nos.6-10 submitted that the petitioner after fixing the date of special meeting of ‘no confidence motion’ on 16.02.2024 at 11.00AM has rushed before this Court defeating the very purpose of ‘no confidence motion’. He informs that this Court had interfered into the matter and vide the order dated 11.01.2024 the meeting has been deferred. He submitted that the petitioner being the Pramukh is required to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 of the Act and must not refrain from re-fixing the date of special meeting, after having admitted that a communication made by her as contained in letter no.117/01 dated 02.01.2024 fixing date of special meeting on 16.01.2024. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent nos.6-10 submitted that the petitioner has not stated true facts in her writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent nos.6-10 submitted that the petitioner has not stated true facts in her writ petition. He further submitted that the petitioner never attended her office regularly during her tenure. Learned counsel also submitted that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, as the petitioner herself had fixed the date of the meeting for special meeting of ‘no confidence motion’. The Executive Officer accordingly gave notice about the date of ‘no confidence motion’. The petitioner instead of holding the meeting has filed the present writ application to engage herself in horse trading. 6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that the Mukhiya has nothing to do with the affairs of Panchayat Samiti and the certificates granted by them in favour of the petitioner can not restrain the members to tender their requisition with specific charges levelled against her. The certificates of Mukhiya has of no relevance. 7. The official records which are in possession of State respondent are proof of the fact that the requisition was made by the majority of member of Gram Panchayat Samiti on the basis of charges. He further submitted that in the above facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is devoid of merit is fit to be dismissed 8. 7. The official records which are in possession of State respondent are proof of the fact that the requisition was made by the majority of member of Gram Panchayat Samiti on the basis of charges. He further submitted that in the above facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is devoid of merit is fit to be dismissed 8. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of parties, the pleadings made in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State, as well as, the private respondents nos.6-10, it appears following allegations have been made against the petitioner in the requisition for holding special meeting of ‘No Confidence Motion’:— ^^1- iapk;r lfefr dk cSBd izR;sd nks ekg ij djuk gS ysfdu vkids }kjk nks o"kksZ esa vc rd rhu ckj gh fd;k x;k gS] tks fcgkj iapk;r jkt vfèkfu;e] 2006 ds fo:} gSA 2- lHkh fuokZpu {ks= esa leku :i ls jkf'k dk forj.k ugha fd;k tk jgk gS] tcfd ljdkj }kjk lHkh fuokZpu {ks=ksa ds fodkl ds fy, leku :i ls jkf'k dk vkoaVu djrh gS] tcfd vkids }kjk jkf'k forj.k esa euekuh joS;k viuk;k tkrk gSA 3- vkids }kjk izeq[k d{k esa dk;kZy; vof/k ds nkSjku vkidh mifLFkfr ux.; gS ftlls ge tuizfrfufèk ,oa turk dh leL;k dk lekèkku ugha djk ik jgs gSaA tcfd iz[k.M izeq[k gksus ds ukrs turk dh leL;k ds funku gsrq izeq[k d{k miyCèk djk;k x;k gSA 4- fofHkUu LFkk;h lfefr dh xBu ds mijkar m|ru ,d Hkh cSBd dk vk;kstu ugha fd;k tkuk dkQh fpUrktud gSA blls xfBr LFkkbZ lfefr dk vkSfpR; ij gh iz'u fpUg yx x;k gSA** 9. The allegations are specific and the majority of the members of the Panchayat Samiti have made a requisition for calling a special meeting of ‘no confidence motion’. The petitioner had fixed the date of special meeting of ‘no confidence motion’. Now he being a democratically elected member of the Panchayat Samiti can not restrain from fixing a date of meeting. 10. This Court is flooded with several writ petitions challenging the special meeting for ‘no confidence motion’ by the elected members, who are the members of the Panchayat Samiti or by the Pramukh and the Up-pramukh, on the basis of certain charges levelled against the Pramukh, Up-pramukh by the members of the Panchayat Samiti. 10. This Court is flooded with several writ petitions challenging the special meeting for ‘no confidence motion’ by the elected members, who are the members of the Panchayat Samiti or by the Pramukh and the Up-pramukh, on the basis of certain charges levelled against the Pramukh, Up-pramukh by the members of the Panchayat Samiti. The election of Gram Panchayat was held in the year 2021 in accordance with provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 11. In view of the legislative mandate in Section 44 sub-section(3) sub-clause(ii) of the Act ‘no confidence motion’ shall not be brought forward against the Pramukh and Up-pramukh within first two years of their tenure to lend stability and dignity to the Panchayat Raj Institution. For better appreciation Section 44 sub-section (3) sub-clause (ii) of the Act is being reproduced hereinunder:— ‘(ii) No confidence motion shall not be moved against the Pramukh or the Up-pramukh within the first two year period of their tenure. Such a no confidence motion may be brought only once in the whole tenure of Pramukh/Uppramukh.’ (Emphasis applied) 12. The part 9 of the Constitution of India, specially the provision of Article 243, does not prescribe for any provision for ‘no confidence motion’. It has been laid down by the Apex Court that the constitution is not to give all details of the provision contemplated therein. 13. The ‘no confidence motion’ against the Chairperson, Pramukh is as per constitutional provision and in this context Article 243N of the Constitution of India in part 9 is relevant and same is reproduced hereinbelow:— “Article-243N. Continuance of existing laws and Panchayats.—Notwithstanding anything in this Part, any provision of any law relating to Panchayats in force in a State immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority or until the expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier: Provided that all the Panchayats existing immediately before such commencement shall continue till the expiration of their duration, unless sooner dissolved by a resolution passed to that effect by the Legislative Assembly of that State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, by each House of the Legislature of that State.” 14. In democracy, the elected persons hold the mandate of people and the same can only be calling a ‘no confidence motion’ by the member of the Panchayat Samiti including the Pramukh, the Up-pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti. 15. The petitioner is, in any case, is not going to be ousted from his membership as a member of the Panchayat Samiti, being an elected member, she must not refrain from fixing the date of special meeting for ‘no confidence motion’. The petitioner, being the Pramukh, is directed to fix date of special meeting in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 and Section 46 of the Act. 16. The members of the Panchayat Samiti are required to make a fresh requisition before the petitioner within a period of two days from the date of passing of this order. 17. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.