Archana Singh and Others vs The State of Bihar and Others

I.A. Ansari, J.—We have heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Mangalam, learned Counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents 9, 18, 22, 28, 29, 33 and 34. We have also heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents 7, 13, 16, 25, 26, 27 and 32, and Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents 6, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 31. The appellants herein were elected as Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Bhojpur Zila Parishad, Ara, in the year 2011. A requisition, dated 1.7.2013, signed by seven members of the Zila Parishad, was given to the appellant No. 1, i.e. Chairman of the Bhojpur Zila Parishad, requesting her to convene special meeting of the Zila Parishad to consider motion of no confidence against both the appellants. On 1.7.2013 itself, the requisition aforementioned was also brought to the notice of the appellant No. 1 herein by the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhojpur Zila Parishad. By an order, dated 2.7.2013, the appellant No. 1 rejected the said requisition, the primary ground for the rejection being that no reason or charge, for the motions of no confidence, had been disclosed, while requisitioning the special meeting.

Being aggrieved, the requisitionist approached respondent No. 4, namely, District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara, on 4.7.2013, seeking convening of a special meeting of the Zila Parishad on motions of no confidence in terms of Section 70(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.

By order, dated 10.7.2013, respondent No. 4, namely, District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara, directed summoning of a special meeting of the Zila Parishad, on 23.7.2013, at 11:00 AM, under his Chairmanship, and respondent No. 5, namely, Chief Executive Officer-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, Zila Parishad, Bhojpur, Ara, was directed to issue notice accordingly. By communication, dated 10.7.2013, respondent No. 5 circulated order of respondent No. 4 fixing the special meeting of the Zila Parishad at the place and time indicated therein, i.e., on 23.7.2013, at 11:00 A.M.

In the meanwhile, 16 elected members of the Zila Parishad, who have been impleaded as 1st set of private respondents in this appeal, gave, on 6.7.2013, a requisition, for special meeting, the requisition having been signed by them incorporating therein specific charges on which they sought no confidence motions against both the appellants. This requisition was delivered to the office of the appellant No. 1 as she was not present in the office at the relevant point of time, but the appellant No. 1 did not act on the later requisition either and, upon after expiry of seven days of the filing of the requisition, the appellant No. 1 made an order, on 12.7.2013, rejecting the said requisition on the ground that respondent No. 4, namely, District Magistrate, had already convened a special meeting of the Zila Parishad, on 23.7.2013, by his order, dated 10.7.2013. The said 16 elected members of the Zila Parishad, who had requisitioned the special meeting, then, approached respondent No. 4, District Magistrate, and the District Magistrate, thereafter, on 17.7.2013, directed consideration of the subject matter of the said requisition, too, in the special meeting, which had already been scheduled to be held on 23.7.2013.

In substance, thus, the special meeting was directed, by the District Magistrate, to be held, on 23.7.2013, to discuss, debate and decide both the motions of no confidence, which two sets of requisitionists had sought for.

As scheduled, the special meeting was held on 23.7.2013, wherein the no confidence motions, moved against the two appellants, were discussed/debated and put to vote by secret ballot. Both the appellants herein participated in the said special meeting held on 23.7.2013. Out of the 30 elected members of the Zila Parishad, 21 members participated in the proceedings of the no confidence motions. In the no confidence motions, the appellants and the requisitionists of the first requisition did not cast their votes. Be that as it may, 17 elected members had voted in favour of no confidence motion against the appellant No. 1 and, similarly, in the case of appellant No. 2, the no confidence motion was passed, wherein 18 elected members voted in favour of the motion, while two opposed the motion.

Aggrieved by the fact that the majority of the elected members of the Zila Parishad, who had voted in favour of the no confidence motions and thereby ousted the two appellants from their respective elected offices, which they were holding, the appellants, with the help of a writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, put to challenge the passing of the motions of no confidence against them on the ground that the manner and method of convening of the special meeting, which was held on 23.7.2013, were bad in law.

The writ petition, so filed, gave rise to CWJC No. 13586 of 2013. By order, dated 26.3.2014, a learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that having participated in the special meeting, which was held on 23.7.2013, and having voted out of their respective offices, the appellants must be treated to have waived their rights, if any, and were, therefore, not entitled to maintain a challenge to the passing of the no confidence motions. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petition, the writ petitioners are, in appeal, before this Court.

Placing the case on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Mangalam, learned Counsel, has pointed put that the appellant No. 1 rejected, on 2.7.2013, the requisition, dated 1.7.2013, signed by seven members of the Zila Parishad seeking special meeting to be convened for discussing the motions of no confidence against the two appellants and, upon rejection of their requests for special meeting, the requisitionists approached the District Magistrate, on 4.7.2013, seeking special meeting to convened, whereupon the District Magistrate, by order, dated 10.7.2013, convened the special meeting, on 23.7.2013 and, in the meanwhile, another requisition, dated 6.7.2013, signed by 16 elected members incorporating therein specific charges on which they had sought for no confidence motions to be taken up, was given to the appellant No. 1 herein, who rejected the second requisition, on 12.7.2013, on the ground that the District Magistrate had already convened the special meeting of the Zila Parishad, on 23.7.2013, by his order, dated 10.7.2013, whereupon second set of requisitionists approached the District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara, who, by another communication, dated 17.7.2013, directed consideration of the said requisition, too, in the special meeting scheduled to be held on 23.7.2013 and, thus, points out Mr. Mangalam, learned Counsel, seven days of clear notice was not given, while convening the special meeting to discuss no confidence motion, on the basis of the second requisition inasmuch as the order, placing the subject matter of the said requisition, was passed by the District Magistrate, on 17.7.2013, whereas the special meeting was held on 23.7.2013, i.e. within a period of less than seven days, and this was, according to Mr. Mangalam, learned Counsel, contrary to the requirements of the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.

Controverting the above submissions made on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Baxi, learned Senior Counsel, points out that it is Section 70 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, which deals with the resignation or removal of Adhyaksha (Chairman) and Up-Adhyaksha (Deputy Chairman); whereas Section 72 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, deals with the meeting of the Zila Parishad. Mr. Baxi also submits that in terms of Section 70 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, while a special meeting is required to be convened "within'' seven days of the receipt of the requisition, the meeting to be called, on requisition, requires notice of seven "clear'' days, under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, and, thus, it is Section 70 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, which is applicable to the facts of the present case and not Section 72 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.

While considering the rival submissions made before us, what needs to be noted is that both the appellants, having participated in the said meeting and having been voted out of office by the passing of the motions of no confidence against them, have, now, challenged the notice, dated 17.7.2013, whereby the District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara, had directed that the second requisition, dated 6.7.2013 (made for convening special meeting to discuss motions of no confidence against the two appellants) would be taken up in the special meeting, which had already been convened on 23.7.2013.

The plea of the appellants is that the District Magistrate ought to have been given seven days of clear notice between the date of service of notice and the holding of the special meeting for consideration of no confidence motions; whereas the second notice had been issued on 17.7.2013 and the special meeting was held on 23.7.2013 and, thus, the period of seven days of clear notice was not provided to the appellants or the members of the Zila Parishad for deliberating upon the motions of no confidence.

It needs to be noted that Clause (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 70 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, which deals with resignation or removal of Adhyaksha and Up-adhyaksha, reads as follows:--

"70. (4)(i) Adhayaksha and Up-Adhayaksha shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of the total number of directly elected members from territorial constituencies of the Zila Parishad at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. The requisition for such a special meeting shall be signed by not less than one fifth of the total number of directly elected members of the Zila Parishad and shall be delivered to the Adhyaksha with a copy to the District Magistrate. The Adhyaksha shall within seven days from the date of receipt of such requisition convene a special meeting of the Zila Parishad. The meeting shall be held on a day not later than fifteen days from the date of issue of the notice of the meeting. The meeting shall be presided over by the Adhyaksha if the motion is against the Up-Adhayaksha; if it is against the Adhyaksha the Up-Adhyaksha shall preside over the meeting and if it is against Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha both then the District Magistrate shall preside over the meeting.

In case of the post of Up-adhyaksha being vacant or his absence from the meeting convened for discussion on no confidence motion against the Adhyaksha or the post of Adhyaksha being vacant or his absence from the meeting convened for discussion on no confidence motion against the Up-Adhyaksha, as the case may be, the meeting shall be presided over by any member elected from amongst the directly elected members from the territorial constituencies of the Zila Parishad present in the meeting. In case of failure to convene the meeting by the Adhyaksha, the District Magistrate shall convene the meeting in the same manner and the meeting shall be presided by him.

No such, meeting shall be postponed once the notice for the same has been issued. No quorum shall be required for the special meeting convened to discuss no confidence motion."

From a careful reading, as a whole, of the provisions, embodied in Section 70(4)(i) of Bihar "Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, what becomes transparent is that when a special meeting is requisitioned by 1/5th of the total number of directly elected members of the Zila Parishad, the Adhyaksha shall convene a special meeting of the Zila Parishad "within'' seven days from the date of receipt of such requisition and, in the case of failure of Adhyaksha, to convene the special meeting, it is the District Magistrate, who shall convene the meeting in the same manner and the meeting, so convened, shall be presided over by the District Magistrate.

The provisions, embodied in Section 70(4)(i) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, show that a District Magistrate is required to convene special meeting, in the event of failure of the Adhyaksha to convene the meeting, in the same manner as a special meeting is required to be called by Adhyaksha.

Situated thus, it becomes clear that since the District Magistrate is required to convene special meeting, under Section 70(4)(i) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, in the same manner as a special meeting is required to be convened by Adhyaksha, the District Magistrate, too, shall, "within'' seven days from the date of receipt of requisition, convene the special meeting.

The expression "within seven days from the date of receipt of such requisition", which appears in sub-section (4) of Section 70 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, cannot be interpreted to mean that the meeting cannot be held without giving seven "clear'' days of notice.

Logically extended, it becomes abundantly clear that Clause (i) of sub-Section (4) of Section 70 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, envisages that the special meeting, on the requisition of no confidence motion, shall be held on any date "within seven days'' from the date of receipt of the requisition.

It has been agitated before us, on behalf of the appellants, by Mr. Mangalam, learned Counsel, that if it is held that the requisitioned special meeting may be convened at any time "within'' seven days instead of seven "clear'' days, then, a special meeting may be convened by the District Magistrate within one or two days and without, thus, giving sufficient time to the members to consider pros and cons of such a meeting.

We are clearly of the view that the Adhyaksha is required to convene a meeting "within'' seven days from the receipt of the requisition and the statute, as reflected by Section 70(4)(i) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, does not make it mandatory that there must be seven days of "clear" notice from the date of the receipt of the requisition and this period will apply even to the convening of the special meeting by the District Magistrate in the event of failure of the Adhyaksha to convene the special meeting.

There can be no doubt that a reasonable period of time is required to be given between the date of notice convening a special meeting and the date on which the special meeting is held. What should be regarded as a reasonable period would really be a question of fact and would, therefore, naturally, depend on the facts of a given case. In no case, however, the period can exceed seven days. It is, therefore, wholly incorrect to impugn the calling of the meeting, in the present case, by the District Magistrate in the manner as has been done in the present case.

In order, however, to strengthen his submissions, Mr. Mangalam, learned Counsel for the appellants, seeks to draw support from the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, which reads as under:--

"72. Meeting of the Zila Parishad--(1) The Zila Parishad shall hold its meetings at least once in every three months, at such time and at such place within the local limit of the district concerned as the Zila Parishad may fix at the immediately preceding meeting:

Provided, that the first meeting of a newly constituted Zila Parishad shall be held at such time and at such place within the local limits of the district concerned, as the District Magistrate may fix and shall be presided over by him:

Provided further that the Adhyaksha when required in writing by one-fifth of the members of the Zila Parishad to call a meeting shall do so within ten days failing which the aforesaid members may call a meeting after giving intimation to the District Magistrate and seven clear days notice to the Adhyaksha and the other members of the Zila Parishad."

Taking resort to the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 72 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, Mr. Mangalam, learned Counsel, submits that this proviso requires seven days of "clear" notice to be given to the Adhyaksha and other members of the Zila Parishad.

We are in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Baxi, learned Senior Counsel, that the period of notice, prescribed by Clause (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 70 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, has nothing to do with the period, which has been prescribed by the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, inasmuch as Section 70 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, deals with resignation and removal of Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha; whereas Section 72 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, deals with calling of the meeting of the Zila Parishad.

In effect, what sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, provides is that a Zila Parishad shall hold its meeting, at least, once in every three months. However, the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, allows requisitioning of a meeting by 1/5th of the members of the Zila Parishad and if, in case, the Adhyaksha, in a given case, fails to call for a meeting within ten days, the requisitionist may call a meeting by giving intimation the District Magistrate and by giving seven days of ''clear'' notice to Adhyaksha and other members of the Zila Parishad. The purpose and scheme of Section 72 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, is clearly different from the purpose and scheme embodied in Section 70 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.

In the backdrop of the position of law, which we have discussed above, when we revert to the facts of the present case, we find that the special meeting had already been convened, on 23.7.2013, and the District Magistrate, on receiving the second requisition for the motions of no confidence, order, on 17.7.2013, placing the second requisition, too, in the said special meeting, on 23.7.2013.

Thus, a period of 5 (five) days were given to the appellants and other members of the Zila Parishad. In the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the period of 5 (five) days were adequate and reasonable. Viewed from this angle, we find no infirmity, in the direction given by the District Magistrate, to place the second requisition, too, in the special meeting, which had been convened on 23.7.2013.

Because of what has been discussed and pointed out above, we do not find that the order, dated 10.7.2013, holding the meeting, on 23.7.2013, suffers from any infirmity of law.

We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with either the result of the meeting held on 23.7.2013 and/or with the order, dated 26.3.2014, whereby the writ petition, bearing CWJC No. 13586 of 2013, has been dismissed.

In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this appeal does not succeed and shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.