Dismissed

Lal Babu Sah v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC20 Jan 2015CWJC/3914/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the removal of the petitioner as Pramukh via a no confidence motion. The court held that the Executive Officer's presentation of the requisition in the file satisfied statutory requirements, and the petitioner's refusal to accept it did not invalidate the subsequent special meeting.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and interlocutory applications are dismissed.

Lal Babu Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3914 of 2014 With

¶2

I.A. No.1481 of 2014 With

¶3

I.A. No.7761 of 2014

¶4

====================================================== Lal Babu Sah, S/o Shri Raj Narayan Sah, resident of Kachharipur, P.OBanar Jhula, P.S- Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi, presently Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi. 6. The Block Development Officer, Sonbarsa -cum- the Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi.

¶10

Ahiraj Shailendra Bhsuhan, S/o not known to the petitioner, presently Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi.

¶11

Gauri Shankar Prasad, S/o not known to the petitioner.

¶12

Mahendra Kumar, S/o not known to the petitioner.

¶13

Sanjay Kumar, S/o not known to the petitioner.

¶14

Pramod Kumar, S/o not known to the petitioner.

¶15

Rajendra Rai, S/o not known to the petitioner.

¶16

Devnandan Rai, S/o not known to the petitioner.

¶17

Tara Nisha,W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶18

Lalita Devi, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶19

Kumar Devi, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶20

Ganga Devi, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶21

Asha Devi, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶22

Lalita Devi, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶23

Mamta Devi, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶24

Noor Jahan Khatoon, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶25

Kiran Devi, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶26

Gita Devi, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶27

Anita Devi, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶28

Munna Mukhiya, S/o not known to the petitioner.

¶29

Ramsewak Paswan, S/o not known to the petitioner.

¶30

Pramila Devi, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶31

Ramesh Sah, S/o not known to the petitioner.

¶32

Bijay Kumar Baitha, S/o not known to the petitioner.

¶33

Sonamukhi Devi, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶34

Md. Ali Hussain, S/o not known to the petitioner.

¶35

Md. Jaffaraula Ali Hussain, S/o not known to the petitioner.

¶36

Shiv Dulari Devi, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶37

Meena Devi, W/o not known to the petitioner.

¶38

Respondent No. 7 to 34 are elected the members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi through the Block Development Officer, Sonbarsa -cum- Executive Officer, Sonbarsa Block Panchayat Samiti, District- Sitamarhi.

¶39

.... .... Respondent/s

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.3914 of 2014 (3) dt.20-01-2015

¶41

¶42

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K.Manglam For the Respondent-State : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-5 For the Private Respondents : Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶43

3 20-01-2015 Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.9.

¶44

Although this writ petition is listed for admission but with the consent of the parties it has been taken up with a view to its final disposal at this stage itself.

¶45

The petitioner had initially questioned the manner in which no confidence motion had been moved against him under the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It is the contention of the petitioner that the requisition was not served on him in the manner prescribed under section 44(3) (i) of ‘the Act’ and in which view of the matter the subsequent steps taken by the requisitionists in fixing the date as well as in convening the special meeting on 22.2.2014 in which the no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner removing him from the post of Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti, Sonbarsa in the district of Sitamarhi, stands invalidated. The subsequent steps taken by the requisitionists have been questioned by the petitioner by filing I.A. No.1481 of

¶46

Patna High Court CWJC No.3914 of 2014 (3) dt.20-01-2015

¶47

¶48

2014 and I.A. No.7761 of 2014.

¶49

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

¶50

The proceedings which have ultimately led to the ouster of the petitioner from the post of Pramukh reflect that upon failure on the part of the petitioner to receive requisition that it was filed in the office and was presented for appropriate order by the Executive Officer in the file but the petitioner failed to discharge the obligation of fixing the date of special meeting rather questioned the mode and manner of the presentation of the requisition. It is in these circumstances that the requisitionists requested the Up-Pramukh to fix the date of special meeting and which was duly fixed by him and was circulated by the Executive Officer to the members of the Panchayat Samiti and consequent whereupon the special meeting was held on 22.2.2014 in which the no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner.

¶51

The circumstances discussed hereinabove, reflect that it was well within the knowledge of the petitioner that the requisitionists have moved against him by filing a requisition for moving no confidence motion but he abdicated the statutory responsibility cast upon him rather avoided to face the motion in which circumstances the Panchayat Samiti Members have

¶52

Patna High Court CWJC No.3914 of 2014 (3) dt.20-01-2015

¶53

¶54

proceeded in accordance with law to fix the date of special meeting and convened the meeting on the date so fixed which has resulted in ouster of the petitioner.

¶55

The records reflect that it is upon refusal of the petitioner to accept the requisition that it was submitted in the office and was forwarded by the Executive Officer to the petitioner for fixing the date of special meeting. This statement that upon refusal by the petitioner to receive the requisition that it was filed in office, may or may not be correct, however the fact remains that the requisition was presented to him by the Executive Officer in file. Meaning thereby the presentation of requisition before the Pramukh was in tune with the statutory requirements and suffered no infirmity. The Pramukh having failed to discharge the obligation cast upon him under ‘the Act’ to fix the date of special meeting, he cannot now turn back to question the motion on its invalidation.

¶56

The writ petition stands dismissed. The interlocutory applications are disposed of.

¶57

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶58

SKPathak/U

Lal Babu Sah v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Babu Sah 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

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs The Bar Council Of India and Ors.

Arbind Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Maha Laxmi Service Station and Anr. Vs Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. and Ors.

Bhupeshwar Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kepar Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mira Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.