Basanti Devi vs The State of Bihar

Jyoti Saran, J.—Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

The petitioner has questioned the no confidence motion passed on 3.9.2014 whereby the petitioner stands removed from the post of Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti, Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur at Ara.

Since the pleadings are complete hence with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself by way of this judgment.

Facts of the case briefly stated is that a no confidence motion was moved against the petitioner on 23.7.2013 but it failed. A second motion was moved again on 2.8.2014 by filing a requisition by 22 members, a copy whereof is placed at Annexure-4. An objection was raised by the petitioner to the requisition on 5.8.2014, placed at Annexure-6 and which was duly communicated by the Executive Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur to the members. Since the petitioner did not choose to proceed for fixing a date of special meeting in the light of the requisition placed at Annexure-4, in terms of the provisions underlying Section 44(3)(1) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') that the requisitionist requested the Up Pramukh to discharge his legal obligations and which is manifest from their letter placed at Annexure-9 of the writ proceedings. The Up-Pramukh in turn requested the Executive Officer to convene the special meeting on 23.8.2014 vide letter dated 17.8.2014, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-10. The petitioner again raised his objection to the convening of the special meeting, copy whereof is placed at Annexure-12 to the writ proceedings. According to the petitioner many of the requisitionists were not in support of the motion. The Executive Officer vide letter dated 25.8.2014 placed at Annexure-14 communicated the date of the special meeting on 3.9.2014 to the members. The petitioner participated in the special meeting and was voted out.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records.

The main issue raised by Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh to contest the motion is as follows:

(a) Not less than 15 members were in his support.

(b) The notice convening special meeting dated 25.8.2014 placed at Annexure-14 is not accompanied with reasons and thus is in contravention of the mandatory provisions underlying Section 44(3)(v); and

(c) Although out of 28 elected members one had died and three have not signed the proceedings but the total votes polled are 27.

I would be dealing with the issues raised by learned counsel one by one.

In so far as the objection regarding 15 persons opposing the motion is concerned, this issue would stand determined by the secret ballot and since the proceedings of the special meeting manifests that all these members participated in the same to support the no confidence motion and have voted against the petitioner, the objections are only taken to be rejected.

In so far as absence of reasons is concerned, no doubt it is mandatory condition and every such notice convening special meeting should accompany reasons/allegations which are foundation thereof failing which the proceedings would stand vitiated but the proceedings of the special meeting impugned at Annexure-15 manifests that the petitioner had participated therein without raising any such objection. In view of the Division Bench pronouncement of this Court reported in Smt. Shamshad Khatun Vs. State of Bihar and Others , it would be deemed that the petitioner has waived her right to question the infirmities in the notice and shall be bound by the outcome of the proceedings.

In so far as the third issue is concerned, of the four persons whereas one Dharamvir Singh had died, the person at Serial No. 10 Gorakh Nath Singh is the Up Pramukh and has put his signature at the commencement of the special meeting and though has failed to do so against his name but that is a mere slip. This aspects leaves only two persons who have not signed the proceedings i.e. the person at Serial No. 17 Lal Bahadur Singh and the person at Serial No. 22, Raj Kumar Singh.

The total elected members are 28 and thus 15 members would constitute a majority to support the motion. In the present case, the records manifests that 20 members have supported the no confidence motion thus even if the objection of the petitioner is taken on its face value yet it would not have any effect on the result of the motion.

For the reasons aforementioned, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the outcome of the special meeting whereunder the petitioner has lost the confidence of the House and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Interlocutory application stands disposed of.