AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the 14 members of the Panchayat
Samiti, who had expressed want of confidence in Pramukh and Smt. Archana Meenakshee, learned counsel for the State.
The prayers of the petitioners in the instant writ petition are three-fold. Firstly, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the requisition dated
18.06.2018 addressed to petitioner no.1 but filed in the office of respondent no.7 whereby and whereunder the requisitionist members of the Block
Panchayat Samiti, Dighal Bank (for short ‘Panchayat Samiti’) have requested the petitioner no.1 to convene the special meeting of the
Panchayat Samiti to consider their want of confidence against her. Secondly, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notice dated 27.06.2018
issued under the signature of respondent no. 7 and contained in his letter no. 702 addressed to petitioner no. 1 whereby the petitioner no. 1 has been
requested to attend the special meeting of Panchayat Samiti on 06.07.2018 convened for consideration of want of confidence against her and
petitioner no.
Thirdly, the petitioners have prayed for quashing proceedings of special meeting dated 06.07.2018 issued under memo no. 749 dated 06.07.2018
wherein the motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioners has been passed and they have been removed from their respective posts.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner no.1 had contested for the post of Pramukh and the petitioner no.
2 had contested for the post of Up- Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti. They were declared elected on the respective posts on 18.06.2016. Since then,
they were performing their duties as Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti. A requisition was moved by 14 members of the Panchayat
Samiti being respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 ,24, 27 and 28 on 18.06.2018 expressing want of confidence in petitioner no. 1 and
requesting therein for convening a special meeting for deliberation on the motion of no confidence. The said requisition was filed in the office of
respondent no. 7 and was forwarded by the respondent no. 7 in file on 23.06.2018 before petitioner no. 1 for fixing a date for convening special
meeting. The petitioner no. 1 returned the file to the respondent no. 7 on 23.06.2018 itself stating therein that because of her poor health, she is not in a
position to convene the special meeting. Thereafter, respondent no.7 issued notice on 27.06.2018 to the petitioners and other members of Panchayat
Samiti for holding the special meeting on 06.07.2018 to consider motion of want of confidence in the petitioners, i.e. Pramukh and Up-Pramukh. Being
aggrieved by the aforestated notice dated 27.06.2018, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition on 05.07.2018 and since the special meeting was
already held on 06.07.2018 in which the 14 requisitionist members participated and voted in favour of the motion expressing want of confidence in the
petitioners, the motion was passed and the petitioners have been removed from their respective posts. Being aggrieved by the requisition passed in the
special meeting, interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioners challenging the proceeding of the special meeting dated 06.07.2018.
Assailing the requisition dated 18.06.2018, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said requisition had been filed by the requisitionists
in violation of the provisions contained under Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 ( for short ‘2006 Act’) which mandates that
the requisition for such a special meeting shall be presented to the Pramukh in writing with a copy to the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti by
not less than one-third of the total number of members elected directly from the constituency of the Panchayat Samiti. He submitted that in the
present case, the requisition expressing want of confidence in petitioner no. 1 was not presented to the Pramukh rather the same was presented to the
Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, who had forwarded the same before the petitioner no. 1 for convening a special meeting.
He submitted that the requisition was expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh only and there is no mention of want of confidence in the Up-
Pramukh.
He further submitted that the notice dated 27.06.2018 issued by the respondent no. 7 vide letter no. 702 dated 27.06.2018 requesting the petitioner
no. 1 to attend the special meeting of Panchayat Samiti on 06.07.2018 convened for consideration of no confidence motion is also bad for the reason
that the same is in violation of mandatory provision contained in Section 44(3)(i) of 2006 Act which provides that if the Pramukh fails to call a special
meeting, the Up-Pramukh or one-third of the total number of members elected directly may fix a date for special meeting and require the Executive
Officer to give notice to the members and take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting. The said Section 44(3)(i) of 2006 Act grants
the Pramukh fifteen days time for convening special meeting in case of a valid requisition.
He urged that the provision prescribed under Section 46(4) of 2006 Act mandates that if a special meeting is to be held, the same should be held
after giving seven days of clear notice when requisition for a special meeting is presented to Pramukh, it is he, who has to decide the date of special
meeting and in terms of decision so taken by the Pramukh, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti is required to issue seven days of clear
notice and when Pramukh fails to convene meeting within fifteen days of such requisition giving seven clear days notice, Up-Pramukh or one- third of
total number of directly elected members of Panchayat Samiti is vested with the right to fix date of such special meeting and require the Executive
Officer to give notice accordingly to members and take such action as may be necessary to convene special meeting whereupon the Executive
Officer shall issue necessary notice.
He contended that even if the requisition forwarded to the petitioner is treated to be a valid requisition for consideration of want of confidence
against petitioner no.1, the Executive Officer could have issued notice on the instruction of one-third members of the committee only after the expiry
of seven days, i.e., on 30.07.2018. But, here in the present case, the requisition was forwarded to the petitioner no.1 on 23.06.2018 and only after four
days, the respondent no. 7 issued notice fixing a date for convening a special meeting which cannot be held to be sustainable in law.
The next ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since there was no occasion for respondent no.7 to issue notice of special
meeting for consideration of want of confidence against petitioner no.1, there was no occasion for the members to be present in the illegally convened
special meeting on 06.07.2018. Again, his contention is that at no point of time, a proper and valid requisition was submitted expressing want of
confidence in petitioner no. 2 and in that circumstance, the issuance of notice for consideration of want of confidence in petitioner no. 2 by the
respondent no.7 is wholly illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law.
On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the requisitionist members of the Panchayat Samiti submitted that the requisition
expressing want of confidence in petitioner no. 1 was addressed to the Pramukh (petitioner no.1) and the same was presented to her through the
Executive Officer. He submitted that though the petitioner no.1 was fully aware of the requisition, she has raised a technical issue that since the same
was not presented to her, it was not in accordance with law. He contended that technically the petitioner no.1 may be right in her contention but now
as she is aware of the requisition expressing want of confidence in her even if the summoning of special meeting and the decision taken therein is held
to be bad, the petitioner no.1 should summon the special meeting on a date falling within fifteen days from today in order to deliberate upon the want
of confidence expressed by members of the Panchayat Samiti in petitioner no.1.
Upon such submission, Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.1 has got no objection to fix the
date of special meeting falling within fifteen days from today granting seven days clear notice to the members of the Panchayat Samiti. However, he
submitted that such meeting can only be held for deliberation and voting on motion of want of confidence in petitioner no.1 as the requisitionists have
not submitted any requisition expressing want of confidence in petitioner no. 2.
On such plea of Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for requisitionist
respondents submitted that though the respondents represented by him before this court had also expressed want of confidence in petitioner no.2, he
would not make the same an issue to further delay and complicate the matter. He proposed that the contesting respondents would file a fresh
requisition expressing want of confidence in petitioner no.2 before the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti and on receipt of such requisition, the
Pramukh should convene a special meeting on a date falling within fifteen days of such requisition in accordance with the provisions of 2006 Act.
Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioners readily agreed to such proposal.
Smt. Archana Meenakshee, learned counsel for the State submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the consensus arrived at
between the contesting parties.
Regard being had to the submissions noted above, with consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:-
(i) The impugned notice dated 27.06.2018 issued under the signature of respondent no.7 contained in his letter no. 702 for consideration of want of
confidence of motion against petitioners is quashed.
(ii) Consequently, the proceedings of the special meeting of Panchayat Samiti dated 06.07.2018 issued under memo no. 749 wherein no confidence
motion has been passed against the petitioners also stand quashed as a result of which the petitioners stand restored as Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of
the Panchayat Samiti.
(iii) The petitioner no.1 shall convene special meeting on a date falling within fifteen days from today granting seven days clear notice in accordance
with the provisions of 2006 Act for deliberation and voting on want of confidence expressed against her by 14 members of the Panchayat Samiti in
their requisition dated 18.06.2018.
(iv) If the petitioner no.1 would fail to call the special meeting as under taken by her before this Court, one-third of the total number of members
elected directly shall be at liberty to fix a date for special meeting and require the Executive Officer to give notice to the members and to take such
action as may be necessary to convene the meeting.
(v) In case, a fresh requisition expressing want of confidence in the Up-Pramukh (petitioner no.2) is presented to the Pramukh in writing with a copy
to the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti by not less than one-third of the total number of members elected directly from the constituency of
the Panchayat Samiti, the Executive Officer shall immediately bring the requisition to the notice of the Pramukh and the Pramukh shall convene such
meeting on a date falling within fifteen days of such requisition in accordance with the provisions of 2006 Act.
(vi) If the Pramukh would fail to call the special meeting, one-third of the total number of members elected directly may fix a date for such meeting
and require the Executive Officer to give notice to the members and take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting.
(vii) No such meeting shall be postponed once the notice of the same shall be issued on any ground.
(viii) No quorum shall be required for the special meeting convened to discuss no confidence motion.