Allowed

Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC16 Dec 2014CWJC/16194/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the writ petition challenging the unseating of the petitioner, Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti. The court held that the requisition and notice for the special meeting violated statutory provisions regarding routing and inclusion of charges, quashing the no confidence motion and restoring the petitioner to office.

What did the court decide?

The no confidence motion passed against the petitioner was set aside, the election of respondent no.15 was set aside, and the petitioner was restored to the post of Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Nagarn

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16194 of 2014 With

¶2

I.A. No.7607 of 2014 With

¶3

I.A. No.8126 of 2014

¶4

====================================================== Sanjay Kumar, S/o- Shri Siyasharan Prasad, resident of village- Jagobigha, P.O.- Ramghat, P.S.- Chandi, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda. 3. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Nalanda. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, District- Nalanda. 5. The Executive Officer -cum- Block Development Officer, BlockNagarnausa, District- Nalanda.

¶7

1. The Secretary, the State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna.

¶8

1. Smt. Sudha Kumari, W/o- Shri Manoj Kumar, Up-Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Nagarnausa, District- Nalanda.

¶9

1. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, W/o Shri Rajendra Paswan. 9. Smt. Ganita Kumari, W/o- Shri Pramod Kumar. 10. Smt. Anita Devi, W/o- Shri Diwakar Ram Prasad. 11. Smt. Sheojati Devi, W/o- Shri Dev Prasad. 12. Smt. Priyanka Devi, W/o- Shri Shishupal Kumar. 13. Shri Ozir Paswan, S/o- Shri Kedar Paswan. 14. Shri Raj Kumar Gaurav, S/o- Shri Shahtu Choudhary. 15. Shri Rajesh Lal, S/o- Shri Vinod Prasad. 16. Shri Karoo Thakur, S/o- Late Kishori Thakur. 17. Shri Indradeo Manjhi, S/o- Shri Muhu Manjhi. 18. Shri Ramji Prasad, S/o- Late Moti Mahto. Respondent Nos.7 to 18 are members of Panchayat Samiti, Nagarnausa, District- Nalanda represented through the Executive Officer -cum- Block Development Officer, Block- Nagarnausa, District- Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava For the Respondent-State : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-6 For Respondent nos.7 to 18 : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate For State Election Commission: Mr. Girish Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 16-12-2014 Heard Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.16194 of 2014 (3) dt.16-12-2014

¶13

¶14

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.7 to 18 and Mr. Girish Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission.

¶15

The petitioner had initially questioned the requisition dated 2.9.2014 placed at Annexure-1, inter alia, on grounds that the manner of presentation of the requisition through the Executive Officer is not a presentation to the Pramukh and is in contravention of the statutory provisions underlying section 44(3) (i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). While the writ petition remained pending, a notice was issued by the Executive Officer- cum- Block Development Oficer, Nagarnausa fixing date of special meeting on 29.9.2014, a copy of which has been impugned vide I.A. No.7607 of 2014 at Annexure-4 and is dated 20.9.2014. The notice is sought to be questioned, inter alia, on grounds that it is in contravention of section 44(3)(v) of ‘the Act’ as it contains no reasons/charges. The requisition and the notice was followed by holding of the special meeting on 29.9.2014 and which has been passed against the petitioner who happens to be the Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Nagarnausa in the district of Nalanda and as a

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.16194 of 2014 (3) dt.16-12-2014

¶17

¶18

consequence he is unseated. Consequent upon unseating of the petitioner from the post of Pramukh that an election was held pursuant to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hilsa on 10.11.2014 and whereafter it is stated that respondent no.15 has been elected as Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti.

¶19

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

¶20

The arguments advanced by Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava to contest the requisition and notice cannot be contested inasmuch as both the requisition as contained in Annexure-1 being routed through the Executive Officer as well as the notice of special meeting placed at Annexure-4 being in contravention of section 44(3) (v) of ‘the Act’ as it contains no reasons/charges, are matters of record.

¶21

In view of the statutory infraction noted above the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner in the special meeting held on 29.9.2014 cannot be upheld and is accordingly set aside. As a consequence the election of respondent no.15 pursuant to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hilsa held on 10.11.2014 also is set aside. The petitioner is restored to the post of Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti, Nagarnausa.

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.16194 of 2014 (3) dt.16-12-2014

¶23

¶24

Since the requisition as well as the notice have been found to be in contravention of the statutory provisions and have been quashed, hence the requisitionists, if so advised, may proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law.

¶25

The writ petition is allowed. The interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

¶26

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶27

SKPathak/U

Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar Kumar Pandey Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

M/s Kems Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ratnesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shabnam Pravin and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Manju Lata Tiwari Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Bhagwat Bhagat and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.