Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 38 (PAT)

Suraj Kumar Paswan v. State of Bihar

2024-01-09

PURNENDU SINGH

body2024
ORDER Heard Mr. Amresh Kumar along with Mr. Jyoti Kumar Sinha & Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned GA 9 for the State. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners informs this Court that ‘No Confidence Motion’ is to be held on 11.01.2024. Apprehension of the petitioners is that the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh may indulge in malpractice in connivance with the Block Development Officer, Dalsinghsarai, which is against the democratic process. 3. Learned counsel submits that by amendment in the year, 2015 by Act 15 of 2015, the following provisions have been inserted in Section 44 (3)(iii) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’), which is rePatna produced inter alia hereinafter as follows: – “Section 44 (3)(iii) - If the motion of no confidence brought against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh or both is once rejected, no fresh motion of no confidence against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh or both, as the case may be, shall be brought before the Panchayat Samiti within a period of one year from the date of such rejection of the motion.” 4. From perusal of the above provisions, it appears that no fresh motion of ‘no confidence motion’ against Pramukh and Up-pramukh or both can be brought before the Panchayat Samiti within a period of one year from the rejection of such motion. He is aggrieved that just after the expiry of two years, the motion has been brought. 5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in the garb of the said provision, when the majority of the elected members have not brought the proposed special meeting for the ‘no confidence motion’ just to meet the conditions as laid down in Section 44 (3)(iii) of the Act and to take advantage of the said provision, no confidence motion has been called for. 6. An apprehension has been made by the petitioners that seven members, who have brought ‘no confidence motion’ against the private respondent nos. 6 and 7, there is every possibility they will remain absent on 11.01.2024. In these backgrounds, he submits that the matter is required to be looked into by the District Magistrate, Samastipur, who has jurisdiction under Section 157 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. 7. 6 and 7, there is every possibility they will remain absent on 11.01.2024. In these backgrounds, he submits that the matter is required to be looked into by the District Magistrate, Samastipur, who has jurisdiction under Section 157 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. 7. Considering the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, the District Magistrate is directed to look into the information, which has been brought to the notice of this Court in exercise of his power under Section 157 of the Act in respect of the matter of ‘no confidence motion’ of the concerned Panchayat Samiti. 8. Considering the fact that ‘no confidence motion’ has been proposed to be held on 11.01.2024, the same shall remain stayed. In the meantime, the District Magistrate, Samastipur is directed to file his counter affidavit duly sworn by him on or before 18.01.2024. 9. Re-notify the case on 18.01.2024.