Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 135 (PAT)

Shruti Shree v. State of Bihar

2024-01-30

PURNENDU SINGH

body2024
Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Mrigank Mouli, learned Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Samir Kumar, Mr. Apurv Harsh, Mr. Sujit Kumar and Mr. Manu Tripurari, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned SC-28 appearing on behalf of the Respondent/s. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that District Magistrate, Patna was only requested to correct the manner in which the special meeting of No Confidence Motion has to be conducted and who had, without jurisdiction directed the Block Development officer-cum-Executive Officer to obtain a fresh date of meeting from the petitioner. However, the Block Development officer-cum-Executive Officer without complying with the direction and the mandate of Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has proceeded to fix the date of special meeting, which is not in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State admitted that the order passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of power conferred under Section 157 of the Act, is a reasoned order and can not be faulted for. However, he is also of the opinion that if the allegation made by the petitioner against the Block Development officer is correct, i.e. in fixing the date of special meeting on his own without obtaining a date, which was required to be communicated to him by the Petitioner, is against the statutory provision of Section 44(3)(i) of the Act, as well as, direction of the District Magistrate. 4. Considering the rival submission made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the admitted fact that the District Magistrate in compliance of the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by this Court in CWJC No.791 of 2024, has exercised his jurisdiction under Section 157 of the Act and after arriving at decision has passed a reasoned order, directing the Block Development officer to obtain a date from the petitioner for fixing a date of holding of special meeting of No Confidence Motion. The action of the Block Development officer, as contained in notice dated 23.01.2024, who himself has fixed the date, is contrary to the provision and manner prescribed in Section 44 (3)(i) of the Act, as well as, in complete defiance of direction the District Magistrate contained in order dated 22.01.2024 vide Memo No.367. 5. The action of the Block Development officer, as contained in notice dated 23.01.2024, who himself has fixed the date, is contrary to the provision and manner prescribed in Section 44 (3)(i) of the Act, as well as, in complete defiance of direction the District Magistrate contained in order dated 22.01.2024 vide Memo No.367. 5. The petitioner is directed to fix a date of No Confidence Motion on or before 07.02.2024 and the meeting is required to be convened in manner clarified by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 113 of 2020 (Dharamsila Kumari vs. Hemant Kumar & Ors.) particularly abiding by the clarification made in paragraph nos. 58 and 59 of the said judgement, among the elected members present in the meeting. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 7. Since the order has been passed in the open Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State is directed to communicate this order to all the State respondents for the needful, without waiting for the order to be pronounced.