Allowed

Ramchandra Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC25 Feb 2011CWJC/12992/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench allowed the writ petition. It held that the solitary charge of poor work quality did not constitute an abuse of power warranting the unseating of an elected Mukhiya, dismissing the action under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 30.7.2010 unseating the Petitioner is set aside and the application is allowed.

Ramchandra Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

 CWJC No.12992 of 2010

¶3

1. RAMCHANDRA RAM S/O LATE BRIJLAL RAM R/O VILL.-MAKSUDPUR ,
UNDER GRAM PANCHAYAT - PARSAUNI KHASH,P.S.-& BLOCK-UNCHKA
GAON,DIS.-GOPALGANJ

¶4

 Versus

¶5

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

¶6

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ,GOVT.OF BIHAR,PATNA.

¶7

3. THE MONETARING OFFICER,DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ,GOVT.OF
BIHAR,PATNA.

¶8

4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GOPLAGANJ.

¶9

5. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER GOPALGANJ.

¶10

6. THE DIRECTOR,DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY GOPALGANJ.

¶11

7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER UCHKA GAON,DIST.-GOPLAGANJ.

¶12

8. THE PROGRAM OFFICER,ROJGAR GUARANTEE YOJNA,UCHKA GAON
BLOCK,DIST.-GOPALGANJ.

¶13

9. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,SOAN BHAWAN,BIRCHAND PATEL
PATH,PATNA.

¶14

10. GEETA DEVI W/O DEOLAL SINGH R/O VILL.-MURADIH,UNDER GRAM
PANCHAYAT-PARSAUNI KHASH , P.S. & BLOCK-UCHKA GAON,DIST.-
GOPALGANJ

¶15

¶16

2/ 25/2/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶17

The petitioner is the elected Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat- Parsauni Khash, P.S. and Block- Unchka Gaon, District- Gopalganj, aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj unseating him from that post in exercise of powers under Section-18(5) of the

¶18

Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The solitary charge against the petitioner related to mud and brick soling work. It further appears

¶19

from the impugned order itself that after a show cause notice was issued, the remaining brick works were

¶20

¶21

carried out and the State Authority has expressed his views that the quality of the work could not be examined since now much time has elapsed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the work has been done, the very substratum of the dispute is knocked out. That it may have been done belatedly does not deviate the fact that the work had been done. The consequences of the order are very serious. It debars the petitioner from contesting elections for the next five years. He was an elected representative and not appointed. It is next submitted that one alleged act cannot constitute an abuse of power or misconduct under Section-18(5) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in 2001 S.C. 2524 (Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab) at paragraph-10 considering the elected status of th3e petitioner which reads as follows:-

¶23

“10. The expression 'abuse of powers' in the context and setting in which it has been used cannot mean use of power which may appear to be simply unreasonable or inappropriate. It implies a wilful abuse or an intentional wrong. An honest though erroneous exercise of power or an indecision is not an abuse of power. A decision, action or instruction may be inconvenient or unpalatable to the person affected but it would not be an abuse of power. It must be such an abuse of power which would render a Councillor unworthy of holding the office of President. Inasmuch as an abuse of power would entail adverse civil consequences, the expression has to be narrowly construed. Yet again, the expression employed in S. 22 is 'abuse of his powers or habitual failure to perform his duties.' The use of

¶24

¶25

plural powers, and the setting of the expression in the framing of S. 22 is not without significance. It is suggestive of legislative intent. The phrase 'abuse of powers' must take colour from the next following expression 'or habitual failure to perform duties.' A singular or casual aberration or failure in exercise of power is not enough; a course of conduct or plurality of aberration or failure in exercise of power and that too involving, dishonesty of intention is 'abuse of powers' within the meaning of S. 22 of the Act. The legislature could not have intended the occupant of an elective office, seated by popular verdict, to be shown exit for a single innocuous action or error of decision.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the State finds it difficult to persuade the Court to take any other view of the matter in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court.

¶27

The impugned order dated 30.7.2010 is set aside. The application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)

Ramchandra Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandra Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lilendra Nr.Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjeeb Kumar Jha Vs Smt.Rekha Devi

Raj Kumar Rai Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dinesh Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shailendra Raut Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Verma Centre Owners Associ Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.