Dismissed

Usha @Usha Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Sept 2024CWJC/3076/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ousted Pramukh challenged no-confidence proceedings on grounds that requisition was never personally presented to her. Holding service by pasting on her house wall valid since she deliberately absented herself, the court dismissed both writ petitions and directed announcement of election within seven days.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions dismissed; State Election Commission directed to announce date of election to vacant post of Pramukh within seven days.

Usha @Usha Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Election Law | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3076 of 2024

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Usha @Usha Devi Wife of Vihari Mishra Resident of Village and P.O.- Jogia, P.S.- Brahmpur, District- Buxar, presently Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶6

The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Buxar, District- Buxar.

¶8

The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Buxar, District- Buxar.

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumraon, District- Buxar.

¶10

The Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶11

The Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶12

Smt. Shivratri Devi Wife of not known to the Petitioner Presently UpPramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S.- Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶13

Mangri Devi Wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶14

Pratibha Devi Wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶15

Gayatri Devi Wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶16

Nagendra Singh Son of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶17

Anju Kumari wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶18

Rama Shankar Tiwary Son of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.- Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶19

Ramavatar Thakur son of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 2/50

¶21

of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.- Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶22

Deo Narayan Ram son of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.- Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶23

Arvind Pal son of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer-cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶24

Munni Kumari wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶25

Kanchan Kumar wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶26

Bindu Devi wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶27

Soni Devi wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer-cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶28

Lakshmi Devi wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶29

Ripu Devi wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer-cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶30

Mira Singh wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶31

Asha Devi wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer-cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶32

Sima Kumari wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 3/50

¶34

Pramila Devi wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶35

Harendra Pandey Son of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶36

Sanjay Kumar Pandey son of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.- Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶37

Gunja Kumari wife of not known to the petitioner The Elected Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O and P.S.Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶38

The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna through the State Election Commissioner.

¶39

The Secretary, The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel path, Patna.

¶40

... ... Respondent/s

¶41

======================================================

¶42

with

¶43

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2477 of 2024

¶44

======================================================

¶45

Sanjay Kumar Pandey Son Gopal Pandey, Resident of village- Deokuli, P.S.Brahmpur, District - Buxar. at Present Panchayat Samiti Member, Gram Panchayat Gahauna-11, Block and P.S.- Brahmpur, District- Buxar.

¶46

... ... Petitioner/s

¶47

Versus

¶48

The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶49

The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶50

The District Magistrate -cum- District Election Officer (Panchayat) Buxar, District-Buxar.

¶51

The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Buxar, District-Buxar.

¶52

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumraon, District- Buxar.

¶53

The Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, District-Buxar.

¶54

The Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Brahmpur, District Buxar.

¶55

Mangri Devi Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S.

¶56

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 4/50

¶57

Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶58

Rama Shankar Tiwary Son of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cum- Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶59

Munni Kumari Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cum- Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶60

Lakshmi Devi Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cum- Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶61

Pratibha Devi Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶62

Ramavatar Thakur Son of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cum- Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶63

Deo Narayan Ram Son of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cum- Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶64

Gunja Kumari Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cum- Executive Officer, Block.

¶65

Smt. Shivratri Devi wife of not known to the petitioner Presently Up Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District-Buxar.

¶66

Gayatri Devi Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶67

Nagendra Singh Son of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cum- Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶68

Anju Kumari Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶69

Arvidn pal Son of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶70

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 5/50

¶71

Kanchan Kumar Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cum- Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶72

Bindu Devi Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District Buxar.

¶73

Soni Devi Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶74

Ripu Devi Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶75

Mira Singh Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶76

Asha Devi Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶77

Sima Kumari Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶78

Pramila Devi Wife of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶79

Harendra Pandey Son of not known to the petitioner Elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur through the Block Development Officer -cum- Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

¶80

Usha Devi @ Usha wife of Vihari Mishra Jogia Resident of village and P.O. Jogia, P.S. Brahmpur, District Buxar, presently Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, District-Buxar.

¶81

... ... Respondent/s

¶82

=============== Appearance : (In Civil Writ Jurisd	===== iction C	================================== ase No. 3076 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s	: :	Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
For the State	:	Mr. Ramadhar Singh, GP 25
For the SEC	:	Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate

¶83

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 6/50

¶84

For the Resp. No.8 to 26 : (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction C	Mr. Manoj Madhav, Advocate ase No. 2477 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s :	Mr. Mayashankar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Nagendra Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Gopal Krishna Nishant, Advocate
For the State :	Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG 13 Mr. Ravi Kumar, AC to AAG 13
For the SEC :	Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate
For the Resp. No.10&12 :	Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate Ms. Nikita Mittal, Advocate Mr. Aditya Raj, Advocate
For the Resp. No.8&16 : ====================	Mr. Manoj Madhav, Advocate ==================================

¶85

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY CAV JUDGMENT

¶86

Date : 06-09-2024

¶87

Heard the parties.

¶88

(A) PRAYER :

¶89

The writ petitioner Usha @ Usha Devi ( CWJC 3076 of 2024 ) has sought following reliefs:-

¶90

(I) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the Respondent no.3 and contained in his memo no.0166 dated 27.01.2024, whereby and where under the Respondent no.3 has been pleased to direct the Respondent no. to take steps for convening the special meeting of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur in view of the guidelines issued by the State Election Commission vide its letter no.2535 dated 16.09.2008 on the ground that if the State Election Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere in the special meeting sought to be convened for consideration of No Confidence Motion and therefore, it has recalled

¶91

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024

¶92

7/50

¶93

its order dated 16.09.2008, the direction of the Respondent no.3 to the Respondent no.6 by the impugned order is thoroughly illegal and cannot be sustained in law.

¶94

(II) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the notice of special meeting of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur dated 17.02.2024 issued under the signature of Respondent no.6 and contained in his letter no. 112 dated 07.02.2024, whereby and where under the Respondent no.6 has been pleased to inform the petitioner to attend the special meeting of Panchayat Samiti on 17.02.2024 convened for consideration of No Confidence Motion against her on the ground that if the petitioner had rejected the proposal of Respondent no.6 to fix the date of special meeting in a File for a valid plausible reason, it is none of the business of Respondent no.6 to approach the Up-Pramukh for fixing the date of special meeting.

¶95

(III) for issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶96

The second writ petitioner Sanjay Kumar

¶97

Panday ( CWJC 2477 of 2024 ) has preferred the present petition for grant of following reliefs:-

¶98

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 8/50

¶99

“for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order bearing Memo No. 0166 dt. 27.01.2024 passed by the Learned District (Panchayat) -Cum- District Election Officer Collector, Buxar whereby and whereunder direction was issued to the Executive Officer-inBlock Development Officer Brahmpur to get fixed the date of Special Meeting from respondent Panchayat Samiti Brahmpur) No. 30 (Pramuk for discussion upon 'No confidence Motion" in view of Section 44(3) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and Provision under Para-7(V) of Letter No. Pan. NIO 30-149/20082535 dt. 16.09.2008, issued by State Electricity Commission, Bihar Patna without giving any opportunity to the petitioner for being heard and without considering that the requisite dated 03.01.2024 was not served upon the Block Pramukh (R.NO. 30) and without serving the requisition to the Pramukh the same was sent to the Executive Officer -Cum-Block Development Officer Brahmpur for fixing the date of Special Meeting with a prayer to quash the aforesaid order and be further pleased to quash the requisition dt. 03.01.2024 which was filed without following the provisions made in Section 44(3) (i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act 2006" And/Or pass such other other order/orders as may appear just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶100

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 9/50

¶101

(B) CASE:-

¶102

As the two writ petitions arises out of same order dated 27.01.2024 issued by the respondent no.3, the District Magistrate, Buxar, with the consent of the parties, both are being heard together and for proper appreciation, the case of Usha @ Usha Devi ( CWJC No.3076 ) who is/was the ‘ Pramukh ’ is being incorporated.

¶103

The matter relates to Brahmpur Block Panchayat Samiti, Buxar where the petitioner, Usha @ Usha Devi (CWJC No.3076 of 2024) was elected as the ‘Pramukh’ defeating respondent no.9, Mangri Devi. After the passage of two years, respondent no.9 as also other elected members made request for convening special meeting to discuss the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against her.

¶104

According to the petitioner, Usha @ Usha Devi, sub-section 3(i) of Section-44 of the Bihar Panchayat Act, 2006 (herein for short ‘the Act’ ), would cast a mandatory duty upon the elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti to present the requisition before the ‘Pramukh’ and according to the said provision with a copy of the said requisition to be submitted before the Executive Officer who in turn shall immediately bring the same to the notice of the ‘Pramukh’.

¶105

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 10/50

¶106

The petitioner claims that though she was present at her home on 02.01.2024 and for some time in the office, no elected member had come to her place to present the requisition.

¶107

It is her claim that due to family work, she later went out of Headquarter on 03.01.2024 itself, which was informed vide her letter no.01 dated 02.01.2024 to the respondent no.6, the Executive Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Brahmpur, Buxar..

¶108

The further case is that on 03.01.2024 , when she was not present in the office, being out of station, the elected members had no occasion to present their requisition before the petitioner. However, requisitionist submitted their requisition in the office of respondent no.6 on 03.01.2024 , the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Brahmpur Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur, who in turn vide his letter no.7 dated 03.01.2024 forwarded the original copy of the requisition of the members to the petitioner with a request for fixing of the date of special meeting.

¶109

On 04.01.2024 , a peon of the office of respondent no.6 went to the petitioner's house for the purposes of service of requisition of the members where he was informed that the petitioner is out of Station. However, the peon hanged the

¶110

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 11/50

¶111

requisition and forwarding letter of the respondent no.6 on the outer wall of the petitioner's house and took its photographs.

¶112

When this fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner by her family members, she cancelled her program and came back to her home in the morning of 05.01.2024 . On the same day, she wrote a letter to the respondent no.6 asking her to reply how the requisition was hanged on her house wall. She wanted the respondent no.6 to submit his reply within 48 hours and also to send a copy of the requisition forthwith.

¶113

The respondent no.6 thereafter sent a copy of the requisition through the Peon Book which the petitioner had received on 05.01.2024 .

¶114

However, since the requisition was neither presented in the manner prescribed under ‘the Act’ nor there was any bonafide prayer of the requisitionists in accordance with law, the petitioner returned the requisition to the respondent no.6 along with her letter no.08/24 dated 09.01.2024 and rejected the request of the members on the ground that it was not presented as per ‘the Act’.

¶115

After the petitioner rejected the request on 09.01.2024, the respondent no.6 came out with the impugned notice of the special meeting vide his letter no.18 dated

¶116

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 12/50

¶117

09.01.2024 whereby and where under the elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti were requested to attend the special meeting of Block Panchayat Samiti on 16.01.2024 for consideration of ‘ No Confidence Motion ’ against the petitioner.

¶118

After receipt of a copy of the aforesaid impugned notice issued by the Respondent no.6,the petitioner enquired about the matter when she came to know that on 08.01.2024 itself, the Respondent no.6 approached the respondent no.8 for fixing the date of special meeting who fixed the date of special meeting on 16.01.2024.

¶119

The petitioner thereafter challenged the aforesaid notice in C.W.J.C. No.760 of 2024 interalia on the following grounds :-

¶120

“(a) If the petitioner has received the requisition through the Peon Book on 05.01.2024, according to the statutory provision, time till 11.01.2024 was available to the petitioner to take her decision on the requisition of the member, however, the respondent no.6 exceeded his jurisdiction when he approached the respondent no.8 on 08.01.2024 itself for fixing the date of special meeting and the respondent no.8 exceeded her jurisdiction while fixing the date of special meeting on 16.01.2024 vide his letter dated 09.01.2024, since time till 11.01.2024 was

¶121

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 13/50

¶122

available to the petitioner to take her decision.

¶123

(b) The notice dated 09.01.2024 issued by the respondent no.6 does not comply the mandatory requirement of seven clear days notice as contemplated under Sub Section 4 of Section Act. 46 of the Gram Panchayat.”

¶124

The writ petition was disposed of on 12.01.2024 and the impugned notice dated 09.01.2024 fixing the date of special meeting on 16.01.2024 was set aside since the notice dated 09.01.2024 did not fulfill the mandatory provision of Section 46(4) of ‘the Act’.

¶125

The petitioner claims that notwithstanding the provisions contained under Section 44(3)(i) of ‘the Act’ , ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the ‘ Pramukh ’ and ‘ Up-Pramukh ’ can be brought only once in the entire tenure, after receiving a copy of the judgment of the Court, the respondent no.6 exceeded his jurisdiction and directly approached the respondent no.8 for fixing the fresh date of special meeting who readily fixed the date of special meeting on 29.01.2024 . This followed the request sent by the respondent no.6 to the elected members to attend the special meeting of Block Panchayat Samiti on 29.01.2024 for consideration of ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner.

¶126

Aggrieved, by the aforesaid action of the

¶127

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 14/50

¶128

respondent nos. 3, 6 and 8, the petitioner once again approached the Court in C.W.J.C. No.1494 of 2024 . The said writ petition was heard by a bench of the Court on 25.01.2024 and after hearing the parties, it allowed the petitioner to approach the respondent no.3, the District Magistrate, Buxar to pass a reasoned order under Section 157 of ‘ the Act ’. He was also directed to call upon all the members of Panchayat Samiti before him on 27.01.2024 before taking decision and to take action against the members, if any of them fail to appear.

¶129

This followed the direction of the respondent no.3 to the elected members of Panchayat Samiti to appear in his office on 27.01.2024 . As directed, the petitioner and 22 other members of the Panchayat Samiti went to the office of respondent no.3 on 27.01.2024 to participate in the hearing.

¶130

The claim of the petitioner is that despite pointing out illegalities committed including non-compliance of the provisions of Section-44 (3)(i) of ‘the Act’; the respondent no.3 ignored all such plea and on 27.01.2024 itself, passed the impugned order as contained in his memo no.0166 dated 27.01.2024 , whereby and where under he directed the respondent no.6 to take steps for holding the special meeting.

¶131

After the decision of the respondent no.3, once

¶132

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 15/50

¶133

again the file was presented before the petitioner on 30.01.2024 with a request to fix the date of special meeting.

¶134

The same was once again rejected by the petitioner on 05.02.2024 after which the respondent no.6 approached the respondent no.8 who had fixed the date of special meeting on 17.02.2024 for consideration of ‘ No Confidence Motion ’ against the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent no.6 issued impugned notice of special meeting to the petitioner vide his letter no.112 dated 07.02.2024 to participate in the elected member’s special meeting on 17.02.2024.

¶135

Aggrieved, the present petition was preferred for the third time by the petitioner for interfering amongst other with the decision taken to fix the date of special meeting on 17.02.2024 to discuss the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner.

¶136

The second writ petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Panday ( CWJC No.2477 of 2024 ) in the meantime, has also preferred the petition echoing the case of the Pramukh , Usha @ Usha Devi and wants decision of the respondent no.3 the District Magistrate, Buxar to go as it is in the teeth of different sections of ‘the Act’.

¶137

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 16/50

¶138

(C) THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS:-

¶139

The points put forward by Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam,

¶140

representing the ‘Pramukh’ and leading the arguments on behalf of the two writ petitions is/are that:

¶141

(i) the admitted fact is that the request was never presented before her by the signatories on 03.01.2024;

¶142

(ii) as such, she justifiably rejected it. In that background, once the District Magistrate, Buxar decided the matter and communicated vide memo no.0116 dated 27.01.2024 , she was still within her right to refuse the request made by the respondent Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur observing that only after the requisition is put forward before her, she will take a decision.

¶143

(iii) it is his submission that under no circumstances, the respondents had any authority to paste the request on the wall of her house which were deliberately done to demoralise the ‘Pramukh’ as also those who elected her;

¶144

(iv) he submits that admittedly, the petitioner was not at her home on 03.01.2024 and this was informed to the respondent no.6;

¶145

(v) as such the requisitionist could have waited for her return instead of rushing with the requisition before the respondent no.6;

¶146

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 17/50

¶147

(vi) as it was never presented before her and represented only through the respondent no.6, she was well within her rights to reject it;

¶148

(vii) he submits that when requisition itself is in the teeth of ‘the Act’, all subsequent development that has/have taken place resulting into the removal on 17.02.2024 has to go;

¶149

27 . Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of

¶150

the case took this Court to a decision rendered by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Sheikh Hassmuddin and Anr. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. Reported in 2015 (3) PLJR 203 with specific reference to paragraph nos.9 to 11 which read as follows:-

¶151

9. We have carefully perused Annexure-5. The 2nd appellant addressed that to the 5th respondent stating that she did not receive any notice proposing to move a motion of no confidence against her either directly or through post and for the first time she received a letter addressed by the 5th respondent through post. From this it is difficult, if not impossible, to infer that the 2nd appellant has accepted that she received a copy of notice of no confidence motion. For all practical purposes, the knowledge of the developments was treated as a service of notice, contemplated under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Act.

¶152

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024

¶153

18/50

¶154

10. It is fairly well settled that an elected member is entitled to remain in office till the completion of the term. Any mechanism that has an effect curtailing the term must be undertaken, strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It is for a definite purpose that the legislature wanted the requisitionists, first to serve a copy of the notice of the want of confidence on the Pramukh, notwithstanding the fact that he will be the person to face the heat of that. The reason is that in a given case, the Pramukh may take note of the contents of the notice and initiate action, or steps to address the grievance of the requisitionists. That may lead to giving up of the further steps. Once the important step of service of notice on the Pramukh is not taken, the entire proceedings get vitiated.

¶155

11. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 10.02.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 14526 of 2014. As a result, the writ petition is allowed and the motion moved on 14.08.2014 against the appellants in pursuance of the notice dated 10.07.2014 is set aside and the appellants shall hold the office. The election of Pramukh and UpPramukh in place of the appellants, if any, shall stand set aside. It is, however, left open to the private respondents or for other members to initiate steps in accordance with law.

¶156

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 19/50

¶157

The second decision rendered by the petitioner relates to one Sindhu Devi and Anr. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. decided by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in LPA No.1397 of 2001 and reported in 2002 (1) PLJR 281 wherein paragraph nos.8 to 11 read as follows:-

¶158

8. The court is afraid that it does not agree with the counsel for the appellants that majority is a democracy. If this be so, would it not be mobocracy? After all democracy functions on sanctions, sanctions of the law. Democratic institutions follow, respect and protect the Rule of Law. Otherwise, majority is not democracy but anarchy. Brute majority cannot belittle democratic institutions. Such bad practises lend themselves to dictatorships. This is an example which reflects the evils of having lost 30 years of experience on self Government, even the basic norms of democracy in institutions of self Government have been forgotten. Coming down, now, to realities and the concept under which a motion of no confidence may be considered.

¶159

9. The learned Judge has already noticed the provisions. This court is only reiterating them. An action may be brought for a motion of no confidence against a Pramukh or a Uppramukh of Panchayat Samiti. But this action is not in a vacuum. The law itself contemplates that the man charged will have an opportunity of being

¶160

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 20/50

¶161

heard before being removed from his office for any misconduct in discharge of his duties. The expression "an opportunity of being heard", and the expression "misconduct in the discharge of his duties", are expressions which are mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 42 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The mechanics of bringing in a motion of no confidence also rests on the premises that should there be a written request of not less than 1/3rd of the total number of members present on a date, within 15 days from such a receipt, a special meeting will be called. But, the law enjoins that such a notice will need to indicate the object for which the meeting is proposed. The exercise to indicate the object contemplates consideration of identified issues in objectivity.

¶162

10. The expression used in the enactment is "specify the object for which the meeting is proposed to be called". This is mentioned in subsection (3) of Section 44. When these obligations have been taken care of that is a notice given by a member in writing, a notice which indicates the charges of misconduct or the misdemeanour which a Pramukh or a Up-Pramukh of a Panchayat Samiti may have to face, then a scheduled period has to lapse and only thereafter a meeting is to be held and then only the business is to be transacted. Again, the law refers to the expression "the business to be trans-

¶163

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 21/50

¶164

acted".

¶165

11. In the circumstances the law enjoins a fair opportunity to the person who faces a charge on an allegation for misconduct or misdemeanour to avail of the opportunity and give his defence before the Panchayat Samiti. After these conditions are satisfied, only thereafter may the Panchayat Samiti consider a motion of no confidence.

¶166

He reiterates that when the original requisition was not presented before her, in view of the aforesaid Division Bench Judgments , the requisition dated 03.01.2024 has to be interfered with and all subsequent development/orders/ proceeding/removal from the post has/have to go and the writ petition be allowed.

¶167

(D) CASE OF RESPONDENT Nos. 10 To 12:-

¶168

Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned Senior Counsel is representing the respondent no.10 and 12. According to him, the facts have already been placed and need no repetition. He submits that:

¶169

(i) the admitted fact is that there was a communication dated 02.01.2024 of the petitioner on record that she is going outstation; (ii) having sensed that a requisition is going to be made by the elected members, it was her deliberate act to leave the headquarter. Thus

¶170

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 22/50

¶171

admittedly, on 03.01.2024 , she was not present in the office of the ‘Pramukh’;

¶172

(iii) in that background, having failed to submit the request before the petitioner, it was presented before the respondent no.6, Block Development Officer, Brahmpur, Buxar who on the same day through his office staffs presented it in her home and as information was given by members of the family that she was absent, it was pasted on the wall of the house;

¶173

(iv) immediately thereafter, she appeared and twice moved this Court firstly in CWJC No. 760 of 2024 and later in CWJC No. 1494 of 2024 in which on 12.01.2024 , the first writ petition was allowed setting aside the notice dated 09.01.2024 as it did not fulfill the mandatory provision of Section 46(4) of ‘the Act’ while the CWJC No.1494 of 2024 was disposed of on 25.01.2024 remitting the matter back to the District Magistrate, Buxar to decide under Section 157 of the Act ;

¶174

(v) the District Magistrate, Buxar, (respondent no.3) thereafter, after hearing of the parties decided and communicate the matter vide memo no.0166 dated 27.01.2024;

¶175

(vi) subsequently, as per the direction in the order, the matter was presented before the petitioner again;

¶176

(vii) she declined to fix the date insisting on original requisition, the same be deemed

¶177

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 23/50

¶178

rejected;

¶179

(viii) accordingly, upon the direction of the ‘ UpPramukh’/one third members , a fresh date for special proceeding was fixed;

¶180

(ix) on 17.02.2024 , the special meeting took place in which of the nineteen elected members appearing, eighteen voted for the motion while one against it. As such, it was declared passed against Usha @ Usha Devi (petitioner) .

¶181

Meanwhile in the case of Sanjay Kumar Pandey

¶182

who preferred CWJC No. 2477 of 2024 , a coordinate Bench of this Court on 18.03.2024 while incorporating the undertaking from the learned counsel for the State Election Commission, Bihar that fresh election will not be conducted, directed the respondent District Magistrate, Buxar to enquire into the matter and file counter affidavit.

¶183

This followed another decision of the District Magistrate, Buxar on 03.04.2024 wherein after recording the entire facts be held that the entire procedure/special meeting that took place on 17.02.2024 was/were in accordance with ‘the Act’

¶184

( Annexure R/5 to the supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.3 ) in Sanjay Kumar Pandey (supra) case.

¶185

Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the

¶186

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 24/50

¶187

aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner had complete knowledge of the requisition and despite challenging it twice before the Patna High Court, now she is harping on having its original copy to fix the date which is deplorable. Learned Senior Counsel submits that despite losing the confidence of the house, she anyhow wants to continue on the post which is not a good sign for the health of Democracy.

¶188

Learned Senior Counsel took this Court to a decision rendered by another Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Sabila Khatoon vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2017 (2) PLJR 29 wherein it was held that ‘ the Act ’ does not specify that it has to be delivered to the Chief Councillor personally and it can be received by any person on her behalf. It further held that service of requisition personally on the Chief Councillor otherwise is also not possible as the person against whom the ‘No Confidence’ is proposed will always go on hiding to delay the requisitions defeating the very purpose of the request. He submits that this is exactly what happened in the present case.

¶189

Paragraph nos. 8 of the Sabila Khatoon (supra) case read as follows:-

¶190

8. A perusal of the said provision shows that requisition has to be given to Chief Councillor.

¶191

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 25/50

¶192

The provision does not satisfy that it has to be delivered to the Chief Councillor personally. It can be received by any person on her behalf. The requirement of serving of requisition personally on the Chief Councillor is otherwise also not possible as the person against her No Confidence is proposed always can go hiding or otherwise delay the receipt of requisition defeating the purpose of sending the requisition itself. Such is the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1077 of 2014 (Rajeshwar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) decided on 4.8.2014 wherein the Court has held the fact. Relevant extract reads as under:-

¶193

18. While answering the question, posed above, it needs to be borne in mind that it is the fundamental rule of the interpretation of statutes that a word, appearing in the statute, shall be given its ordinary meaning and nothing shall be added to the statutory provisions or substracted therefrom. When the word "personally" does not appear in the statutory provisions embodied in Rule 2(i) of 2010 Rules, it will be wholly unreasonable to insist that a requisition under Rule 2(i) of 2010 Rules shall be given "personally" to the Chief Councillor demanding holding of special meeting. 19. When Rule 2(i) of 2010 Rules, nowhere,

¶194

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 26/50

¶195

makes it obligatory, on the part of requisitionists, to give a Chief Councillor requisition for special meeting "personally" Rule 2(i) of 2010 Rules cannot be interpreted to either impose an obligation on the elected members, as requisitionists, to present "personally" to the Chief Councillor the requisition nor can it be said that the Chief Councillor shall be given requisition "personally". If Rule 2(i) of 2010 Rules is interpreted to convey what Mr. Giri attributes to the provisions contained in Rule 2(i) of 2010 Rules, the consequences may be disastrous inasmuch as a Chief Councillor can always avoid personal service of a requisition and would, thus, not call for any special meeting and thereby frustrate the whole purpose of no confidence motion and bring, as a sequel thereto, a complete collapse of a democratic institution, such as, Panchayat."

¶196

( Bold and underlines by this Court )

¶197

He submits that a perusal of the aforesaid section of ‘the Act’ clearly shows that beside the ‘Pramukh’, the Executive Officer has also been assigned the duty to present it before the concerned ‘Pramukh’ and when the requisition dated 03.01.2024 was presented by the Executive Officer, as the

¶198

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 27/50

¶199

Pramukh was not present, was pasted on the wall, it can be safely assumed that it was delivered upon her. He submits that the moment it was pasted on the wall of her house, she knocked the doors of this Court to challenge it and thus it cannot be said that she had no knowledge of the requisition. Learned Senior Counsel concludes by submitting that the writ petitions be dismissed.

¶200

(D) STAND OF THE STATE RESPONDENT Nos.3 to 7:-

¶201

It is the case of the respondents that admittedly, on 03.01.2024, the petitioner absented herself from the office of the ‘Pramukh’ upon knowledge of the requisition. As she herself had submitted a letter and further was not available in the office, the members submitted their requisition in the office of respondent no.06.

¶202

The respondent no.6, the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur in turn, prepared a forwarding letter addressed to the petitioner vide his office letter no.07 dated 03.01.2024 and forwarded the original copy of the requisition to the petitioner for fixation of date of special meeting. The stand is that ‘the Act’ says that it has to be presented to the ‘Pramukh’ with a copy to the Executive Officer who shall immediately bring it to the notice of the ‘Pramukh’ which has to be read jointly. Further, ‘the Act’

¶203

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 28/50

¶204

does not says that it has to be necessarily presented to the ‘Pramukh’ personally wherever her or she is, if he/she is not in the office of the ‘Pramukh’ nor even at his/her house.

¶205

As the petitioner was unavailable, the requisition was pasted on the outer wall of her home and the officials took photographs of it.

¶206

The petitioner immediately acted thereafter and rejected it whereafter on 09.01.2024, on the direction of the respondent no.8 vide letter no.18 dated 09.01.2024, the date of special meeting of Block Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur was fixed for 16.01.2024 for consideration of ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner.

¶207

This followed filing of CWJC No. 760 of 2024 which led to the order dated 12.01.2024 the decision of holding the special meeting on 16.01.2024 was interfered with.

¶208

Another date thereafter for special meeting was fixed by the respondent Executive Officer, Brahmpur vide letter no.41 dated 19.01.2024 as 29.01.2024. Thereafter, the Pramukh filed another writ application bearing CWJC No. 1494 of 2024 which was heard on 25.01.2024 and the same was set-aside with the direction to the respondent no.03 ( the District Magistrate, Buxar ) to pass a reasoned order under section 157 of ‘the Act’

¶209

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 29/50

¶210

after hearing all the members of Gram Panchayat Samiti Before before him on 27.1.2024.

¶211

This followed the matter being heard by the respondent no.3, District Magistrate, Buxar who after hearing them finally rejected the contention of the petitioner and directed vide memo no.0166 dated 27.01.2024 to the respondent no.06 to take steps in accordance with law for fixing the meeting to discuss the ‘No Confidence Motion’.

¶212

The further stand is that the letter no.2535 dated 16.09.2008 issued by the State Election Commission (for short ‘the SEC’) which found mentioned in the order dated 27.01.2024 stands withdrawn vide letter no.449 dated 08.02.2024 after the order dated 27.01.2024 and in any case the fact remains that it was presented before the petitioner ‘Pramukh’ who chose not to act in the matter repeatedly.

¶213

Thereafter the respondent no.6, forwarded the file to the petitioner on 30.01.2024 with a request to fix special meeting which she again rejected on 05.02.2024.

¶214

Thereafter, the respondent no.8, after the request so made directed to fix the date as 17.02.2024 for consideration of ‘ No Confidence Motion ’ against petitioner. This followed the letter no.112 dated 07.02.2024 issued by respondent no.06.

¶215

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 30/50

¶216

On 17.02.2024 , the special meeting took place and in view of the support to the ‘ No Confidence Motion ’ by the majority of the elected members present, it was declared passed against the petitioner.

¶217

Thereafter, the respondent no.5, the SubDivisional Officer, Dumraon issued the necessary instructions for the election of ‘ Pramukh ’ on the vacant seat to be held on 21.03.2024 .

¶218

However, on 18.03.2024 , the writ petitions were heard and the coordinate Bench passed an order and paragraph nos.15 to 20 of Sanjay Kumar Pandey (supra) case read as follows:-

¶219

15. The District Magistrate must ensure to call for entire record relating to the no confidence motion, which was conducted on 17.02.2024 and after making inquiry submit a final report by filing counter affidavit before this Court within a period of three weeks.

¶220

16. Mr. Ravi Ranjan learned counsel for the Election commission informs that he will inform the State Election Commission not to conduct election before any final order is passed in the

¶221

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 31/50

¶222

case.

¶223

17. The Block Development Officer must ensure to serve copies to all the elected members once the petitioners furnish copies of both the writ petitions bearing CWJC No.2477/2024 and CWJC No.3076/24 along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the B.D.O.- cumExecutive Officer within a period of four days from the date of passing of this order.

¶224

18. The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department may direct all the District Magistrates and the B.D.O.-cum-Executive Officers to adhere with the statutory provision contained in Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and Bihar Panchayat Raj Institution (Conduct of Business) Rules, 2015 and restrain from acting on the basis of any circular issued by the State Election Commission in respect of holding of special meeting of ‘No Confidence Motion’.

¶225

19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, and the State

¶226

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 32/50

¶227

Election Commission for taking necessary action.

¶228

20. Re-notify on 08.04.2024.

¶229

Thereafter, the respondent no.3, the District

¶230

Magistrate-cum-District Electoral Officer, Buxar took up the matter on 03.04.2024 and passed the order holding that the procedure adopted which led to the passing of the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner is/was in accordance with law.

¶231

The order of the respondent District Magistrate, Buxar is incorporated hereinbelow:-

¶232

va ” kqy vxzoky] Hkk0iz0ls0 lekgj.kky;] cDlj Anshul Agrawal, I.A.S.

¶233

ftyk inkf/kdkjh] cDlj ¼ ftyk iapk;r “kk[kk ½ District Magistrate, Buxar

¶234

E-mail ID: dm-buxar, [email protected], [email protected], phone:- 0618-222336 (o), 222353(R)

¶235

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa CWJC la[;k& 2477@2024 ¼lat; dqekj im.Ms; cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU;½ rFkk CWJC la[;k&3076@2024 ¼m’kk mQZ m’kk nsoh cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU;½ esa fnukad 18-03-2024 dks ikfjr la;qDr vkns”k ds vuqikyu esa tkWap izfrosnu%&

¶236

¶237

“The District Magistrate must ensure to call for entire record relating to the no confidence motion, which was conducted on 17.02.2024 and after making inquiry submit a final report by filing counter affidavit before this Court within a period of three weeks”

¶238

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds mDr ikfjr vkns”k ds vuqikyu esa iz[kaM] fodkl inkf/kdkjh] czg~eiqj ls fnukad 17-02-2024 dks vk;ksftr iz[kaM izeq[k]

¶239

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 33/50

¶240

iapk;r lfefr] czg~eiqj ds fo:) vfo”okl izLokr laca/kh lEiw.kZ vfHkys[k dh ekax bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 16&0465@ia0] fnuakd 30-03-2024 }kjk dh xbZA

¶241

v/kksgLrk{kjh ds vkns”k lalwfpr Kkikad 16&0166@ia0] fnuakd 27-012024 esa jkT; fuokZpu vk;ksx] fcgkj] iVuk ds i= la[;k&i0fu0 30&149@2008&2635] fnukad 16-09-2008 dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k gS] ftls jkT; fuokZpu vk;ksx] fcgkj iVuk ds i=kad 449] fnukad 08-02-2024 ds }kjk fu’izHkkoh crk;k x;k gSA pwWfd v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk fnukad 27-01-2024 dks gh vkns”k fuxZr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa v/kksgLrk{kjh dh dksbZ xyr ea”kk ugha FkhA mijksDr vkns”k esa fcgkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 2006 ds lHkh lqlaxr izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k gSA

¶242

iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh&lg&dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh] iapk;r lfefr] czg~eiqj ds i=kad 327] fnukad 01-04-2024 }kjk vfHkys[k miyC/k djk;k x;k] ftldh tkWp v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk dh xbZA tkWpksijkUr ik;k x;k fd %&

¶243

1- iz[kaM izeq[k ds fo:) vfo”okl izLrko dqy 24 iapk;r lfefr lnL;ksa esa ls 19 iapk;r lfefr lnL;ksa }kjk fnukad 03-01-2024 ds }kjk vius fyf[kr vkosnu iz[kaM izeq[k dks lacksf/kr djrs gq, vf/k;kpuk nh x;h] ftldh izfrfyfi dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh] iapk;r] lfefr&lg&iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh] czg~eiqj dks Hkh nh x;hA

¶244

2- fcgkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 2006 dh /kkjk 44 ¼3½¼i½ ds izko/kkukuqlkj izkIr v/k;kpuk ds vkyksd esa fnukad 16-01-2024 ,oa 29-01-2024 dks fo”ks’k cSBd gsrq frfFk fu/kkZfjr dh x;h] ijarq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds dze”k% CWJC la[;k&760@2024 ¼m’kk nsoh mQZ m’kk cuke fcgkj ljdkj ,oa vU;½] fnukad 12-01-2024 rFkk rFkk CWJC la[;k&1494@2024 ¼m’kk nsoh mQZ m’kk cuke fcgkj ljdkj ,oa vU;½ esa fnukad 25-01-2024 dks ikfjr vkns”kkuqlkj cSBd laiUu ugh gks ldhA

¶245

3- fnukad 25-01-2024 dks CWJC la[;k&1494@2024 ¼m’kk nsoh mQZ m’kk cuke fcgkj ljdkj ,oa vU;½ esa ikfjr vkns”k ds vuqikyu esa v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk lHkh iapk;r lfefr lnL;ksa dks lwfpr dj lHkh i{kksa dks lqurs gq, fnukad 27-01-2024 dks fvkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 2006 dh /kkjk 157 ds rgr iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, v/kksgLrk{kjh ds Kkikad 16&0166@ia0] fnukad 27-01-2024 ds }kjk vfo”okl izLrko ij ppkZ gsrq iqu% fo”ks’k cSBd cqykus laca/kh vkns”k fuxZRk fd;k x;kA

¶246

4- iqu% iz[kaM izeq[k] czgeiqj ds fo:) vfo”okl izLrko ds fo”ks’k cSBd ds fy, frfFk fu/kkZj.k gsrq lfpdk ,oa i= ds ek/;e ls iz[kaM izeq[k dks lwpuk nh xbZA ¼iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh &lg&dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh] iapk;r lfefr] czgeiqj dk i=kad 73] fnuakd 30-01-2024½ fcgkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 2006 dh /kkjk 44 ¼3½¼i½ % ,slh fo ” ks’k cSBd iapkr; lfefr ds izknsf ” kd fuokZpu {ks=ksa ls

¶247

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 34/50

¶248

fuokZfpr dqy lnL;ksa esa ls de&ls&de ,d frgkbZ fuokZfpr lnL;ksa }kjk izeq[k dks lacksf/kr fyf[kr vf/k;kpuk ij cqyk;h tk;sxh] ftldh izfr iapk;r lfefr ds dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh dks Hkh nh tk,xhA dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh vfoyac mDr vf/k;kpuk ls izeq[k dks voxr djk;sxkA

¶249

5- iz[kaM izeq[k }kjk frfFk fu/kkZfjr ugha dh xbZA rnksijkar lafpdk ,oa i= ds ek/;e ls mi izeq[k dks fo”ks’k cSBd ds frfFk fu/kkZj.k gsrq Hkstk x;k gSA ¼iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh&lg&dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh] iapk;r lfefr] czg~eiqj dk i=kad 103] fnuakd 06-02-2024½ fcgkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 2006 dh /kkjk ¼3½¼i½ izeq[k ,slh vf/k;kpuk dh izkfIr dh frfFk ls 15 fnukad ds vanj mDr cSBd vk;ksftr djsxkA ;fn izeq[k fu/kkZfjr frfFk ij fo ” ks’k cSBd esa vlQy jgrk gS rks mi izeq[k ;k lh/ks fuokZfpr dqy lnL;ksa esa ls ,d frgkbZ lnL; mDr cSBd gsrq fdlh frfFk dk fu/kkZj.k dj ldsaxsA dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh fuf’pr :i ls oSlh lwpuk lle; fuxZr djsaxs ,oa cSBd vkgwr djsaxsA

¶250

6- mi izeq[k] Jherh f”kojkf= nsoh }kjk vius i=kad 03@2024] fnukad 07-02-2024 }kjk vfo”okl izLrko ij ppkZ gsrq fo”ks’k cSBd cqykus ds fy, 17-02-2024 dh frfFk fu/kkZfjr dh xbZA

¶251

7- iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh&lg& gk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh] iapk;r lfefr] czg~eiqj ds i=kad 112] fnukad 07-02-2024 }kjk ifjf”k’V&d esa fo”ks’k cSBd cqykus gsrq lwpuk fuxZr dh x;hA

¶252

8- fo”ks’k cSBd laca/kh lwpuk dk rkfeyk lHkh iapk;r lfefr lnL;ksa dks fvkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e 2006 dh /kkjk 46 ¼4½ ds rgr fnukad 08-02-2024 rd ¼cSBd dh frfFk ls iwjs 07 fnu iwoZ ½ djk fn;k x;kA

¶253

9- fnukad 17-02-2024 dks iz[kaM lHkkxkj] czgeiqj esa ftyk fuokZpu inkf/kdkjh ¼ia0½&lg &ftyk inkf/kdkjh] cDlj ds Kkikad 16&0280@ia0] fnukad 16-02-2024 ds }kjk izfrfu;qDr inkf/kdkjh ¼Hkwfe lq/kkj mi lekgRkkZ] MqejkWo½ dh mifLFkfr esa vfo”okl izLrko ij ppkZ dh dkjZokbZ vijkgu 12%00 cts ls izkjaHk dh xbZ] ftlesa vijkgu 01%00 cts rd lHkh iapk;r lfefr lnL;ksa dks mifLFkr gksus gsrq le; fn;k x;kA fu/kkZfjr le; rd dqy 19 ¼mUuhl½ iapk;r lfefr lnL; mifLFkr gq,A rRi”pkr iz[kaM mi izeq[k dh v/;{krk esa ,d & ,d dj lHkh iapk;r lfefr lnL;ksa ls vfo”okl izLrko ij ppkZ djrs gq, ernku dh izfdz;k laiUu djk;h x;h] ftlesa dqy 19 ¼mUuhl½ er Mkys x;sA erx.kuk ds i”pkr~ vfo”okl izLrko ds i{k esa Mkys x;s erksa dh la[;k 18 ,oa vo”okl izLrko ds foi{k esa Mkys x;s erksa dh la[;k 01 ik;h x;hA bl izdkj vfo”okl izLrko dks cgqer ds lkFk ikfjr fd;k x;kA

¶254

10- ftyk fuokZpu inkf/kdkjh ¼ia0½&lg&ftyk inkf/kdkjh] cDlj ds

¶255

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 35/50

¶256

Kkikad & 16&0280@ia0] fnukad 16-02-2024 ds }kjk izfrfu;qDr inkf/kdkjh ¼Hkwfe lq/kkj mi lekgrkZ] MqejkWo½ ds izfrosnukuqlkj vfo”okl izLrko ls lacaf/kr lkjh izfdz;kvksa dh fofM;ks fjdkWfMZax djk;h x;hA fdlh ds }kjk fdlh izdkj dk dsbZ fojks/k ugha fd;k x;kA iwjh ppkZ] ernku ,oa erx.kuk “kkafriw.kZ okrkoj.k esa laiUu gqbZA

¶257

bl izdkj vfo”okl izLrko dh iwjh izfdz;k fcgkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 2006 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj laiUu djk;h x;h gSA

¶258

ftyk fuokZpu inkf/kdkjh ¼ia0½] &lg& ftyk inkf/kdkjh] cDljA

¶259

Learned State counsel concludes by submitting that the decisions taken by the official respondents are in accordance with law and both the writ petitions be dismissed.

¶260

It is important to note here that neither the ousted

¶261

‘ Pramukh ’, Usha @ Usha Devi (CWJC No.3076 of 2024) nor Sanjay Kumar Pandey (CWJC No.2477 of 2024) has/have challenged the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 the District Magistrate, Buxar.

¶262

(E) THE STAND OF THE RESPONDENT STATE

¶263

ELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR:

¶264

Mr. Ravi Ranjan represents the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna and according to him, earlier after the first special meeting was interfered with by the coordinate Bench, the respondent no.6 the Block Development Officercum-Executive Officer, Brahmpur was in a haste and failed to present it before the ‘Pramukh’ and as such it was again

¶265

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 36/50

¶266

interfered with in the second writ petition when the case was remitted to the District Magistrate, Buxar under section 157 of ‘the Act’.

¶267

It is his submission that pursuant to the order passed by the respondent District Magistrate, Buxar following the matter having been remitted to him, pursuant his direction, the petitioner was duty bound to act on the request and fix a date for special meeting.

¶268

However, once again citing non-production of original document, she refused to fix the date. It will thus come under the category of refusal/rejection and in that background, the respondents were fully justified in taking the matter further for fixing the date of special meeting which led to the special meeting having been held on 17.02.2024 and the ‘ No Confidence Motion ’ was passed against her.

¶269

Learned counsel submits that out of the nineteen elected members present there, eighteen voted against her and this fact should be accepted by the petitioner instead of litigating the matter further.

¶270

He concludes by quoting the famous words of Winston Churchil, the late Prime Minister of United Kingdom :-

¶271

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 37/50

¶272

“At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy, is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper. No amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the over whelming importance of the point.”

¶273

(F) FINDINGS :

¶274

Having gone through the facts of case, the materials on record as also after hearing the respective parties, the present episode can be summed up in the following manner:

¶275

(i) the petitioner, Usha @ Usha Devi who was ‘Pramukh’ deliberately went out of station on 02.01.2024 and thus was not available in the office of the ‘Pramukh’ on 03.01.2024 when the requisition made;

¶276

(ii) it was as such presented before the respondent no.6 on 03.01.2024;

¶277

(iii) the respondent no.6 ensured its presentation before the petitioner immediately on the same day and as she was not available, it was pasted on the wall of her house;

¶278

(iv) upon knowledge, she returned and vide letter dated 09.01.2024 rejected the request on the ground that it was not presented in a proper manner/in accordance with law.

¶279

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 38/50

¶280

(v) the respondent no.6 thereafter, came out with the notice dated 09.01.2024 with the information about the meeting on 16.01.2024 on the direction of the respondent no.8 who was approached with the request to fix the date; (vi) the petitioner moved this Court in CWJC No. 760 of 2024 which was disposed of on 12.01.2024 setting aside the decision to hold the meeting on 16.01.2024 ;

¶281

(vii) however, the petitioner was ignored by the respondent no.6 who directly approached the respondent no.8 which followed the fixing of the date of meeting on 29.01.2024 ;

¶282

(viii) once again, the petitioner filed CWJC No 1494 of 2024 which was disposed of on 25.01.2024 directing her to approach the respondent District Magistrate, Buxar under Section 157 of ‘the Act’ putting the meeting dated 29.01.2024 in abeyance; (ix) the respondent no.3, thereafter, took up the matter on 27.01.2024 and after hearing all the concerned parties, rejected the prayer/consideration of the parties;

¶283

(x) the file was once again presented before the ‘Pramukh’ on 30.01.2024 and after she once again chose not to fix the date, the respondent no.8 was approached who fixed the date as 17.02.2024 ;

¶284

(xi) the respondent no.6, thereafter, issued the

¶285

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 39/50

¶286

letter no.112 dated 07.02.2024 and fixed the date of special meeting of ‘ No Confidence Motion ’ on 17.02.2024 ;

¶287

(xii) on 17.02.2024 , the ‘ No Confidence Motion ’ was passed against the petitioner as the majority of members voted for it;

¶288

(xiii) the date of fresh election was fixed as 21.03.2024 ;

¶289

(xiv) however, pursuant to the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench in Sanjay Kumar Panday (supra) case directing the respondent no.3 to look into the matter recorded the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the State Election Commission and in that background, no election could took place on 21.03.2024 ;

¶290

(xv) the respondent no.3, the District Magistrate, Buxar, thereafter, took up the matter on 30.04.2024 and held that the entire procedure culminating into the passing of the ‘ No Confidence Motion ’ against the petitioner has been held in accordance with law;

¶291

(xvi) neither Usha Devi nor Sanjay Kumar Pandey has challenged the said order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the respondent no.3.

¶292

Now this Court would deal first deal with

¶293

Section 44(3)(i) of ‘the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006’ which read as follows:-

¶294

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 40/50

¶295

Section 44(3)(i):- A Pramukh/Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of the total number of elected members of the Panchayat Samiti at a meeting specially convened for the purpose.

¶296

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 territorial constituencies of the Panchayat Samiti. The Executive Officer shall immediately bring the requisition to the notice of the Pramukh. The Pramukh shall convene such meeting on a date falling within 15 days of such requisition. If the Pramukh fails to call the special meeting, the Up-Pramukh or one third of the total number of directly elected members may fix a date for such 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. The Executive Officer shall necessarily issue such notice in time and convene the meeting. No such meeting shall be postponed once the notice for the same has been issued. No quorum shall be required for the special

¶297

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 41/50

¶298

meeting convened to discuss no confidence motion.

¶299

A conjoint reading of it would show that it has to be presented to the ‘Pramukh’ with a copy to the Executive Officer who shall immediately bring it to the notice of the Pramkukh who shall convene the meeting. The purpose behind ‘the Act’ definitely is that the ‘Pramukh’ must know the charges made against him/her at the first hand so that he/she may be able to answer to it on the day the special meeting takes place as it is he/she who is going to face the heat.

¶300

It however, nowhere speaks of delivery of request/requisition personally to him/her. If the ‘Pramukh’ sensing a ‘No Confidence Motion’ coming against him/her chooses to absent himself/herself for days/weeks/months, this Court wonders whether, the convening of the special meeting has to wait for days/weeks/months till the ‘Pramukh’ reappears. If this is allowed, the democracy will be in peril. The answer thus will be a categorical ‘ No ’. If the Pramukh disappears and the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti through whatever mode serves it to him/her and has the proof that the notice has been served properly, the same will be deemed to have been served. This hypothetical situation has

¶301

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 42/50

¶302

been illustrated only to showcase a situation where the ‘Pramukh’ choses to absent himself/herself for a long period.

¶303

In that background, when the respondent no.6, the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur upon receipt of the requisition presented it before the concerned ‘Pramukh’ on the same day and in her absence, the same having been pasted on the wall of her house, it will be presumed that notice has been validly served upon her. In that circumstances, she cannot insist on personal delivery of it when admittedly, she chose to disappear from home. The 44(3)(i) of ‘ the Act ’ nowhere speaks that unless the original requisition is personally served upon the ‘Pramukh’, he/she cannot move further.

¶304

This Court further cannot take its eyes away from the fact that following the said requisition, she repeatedly knocked the doors of Patna High Court and in that background, she had complete knowledge of the requisition/charges being made against her.

¶305

In CWJC No.760 of 2024 on 12.01.2024, the coordinate Bench of the Court interfered with the decision to fix the meeting. The respondent Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Buxar thereafter committed another illegality which

¶306

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 43/50

¶307

led to the second meeting dated 29.01.2024 having been put in abeyance by the coordinate Bench in CWJC No.1494 of 2024 on 25.01.2024 with a direction to the respondent District Magistrate, Buxar to decide the matter under Section 157 of ‘the Act’.

¶308

Once the District Magistrate, Buxar decided the matter on 27.01.2024 , the requisition was once again presented before the petitioner which was once again turned down by her on the same ground that the requistionists have to present original document before her.

¶309

Having thrice moved before this Court and then to say that unless an original copy of the requisition is personally provided to her, she will not act further is preposterous, in the opinion of the Court.

¶310

The respondents in that circumstance were fully justified in going ahead, fixing the date which resulted into the special meeting having been held on 17.02.2024 where eighteen out of nineteen elected members present voted against her. The petitioner Usha @ Usha Devi was as such removed from the post of ‘ Pramukh ’.

¶311

So far as the contention of the petitioner that without discussion, the motion was put to vote, the same is

¶312

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 44/50

¶313

again fit to be rejected on the ground that a discussion could have taken place only when the petitioner was present there to answer to the charges. This may have led to change of mind amongst the elected members before the motion was put to vote and the ‘Pramukh’ having satisfied the members by answering to it, the motion may have been defeated.

¶314

However, having absented herself from the special meeting to avoid answering to the charges, the petitioner waived of her right to challenge the nonconsideration of charges as a point for setting aside the decision dated 17.02.2024. In the proceeding, it has been recorded that since the petitioner who was to answer the charges chose not to participate in the meeting, the discussion could not take place. In that background, the elected members were fully justified in putting the motion to vote which resulted into the petitioner getting ousted from the post of ‘Pramukh’.

¶315

So far as the decision of Sheikh Hassmuddin (supra) case is concerned, it is not the case of the petitioner that the same was not presented before her. In fact, as the petitioner was absent in the office, immediately after the requisition was made on 03.01.2024 before the respondent

¶316

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 45/50

¶317

Executive Officer, Brahmpur, and (in view of the fact that the petitioner herself on 02.01.2024 had clarified that she will be out of station), the Officer concerned took utmost care and on the same day, the notice was pasted on the wall of her house having been informed by the family that she was not available there.

¶318

Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court, the same shall be construed to have been served upon the petitioner. The Usha @ Usha Devi (petitioner in CWJC No.3076 of 2024) after informing the Officer concerned that she will not remain in her house cannot take the plea that it has to be presented before her personally. Each case has separate facts and circumstance and as such the Division Bench judgment in Sheikh Hassmuddin and Anr. (supra) is not applicable in the present case.

¶319

Same is the case of Sindhu Devi and Anr. (supra). The fact remains that the requisition contained the charges. Further, on the day (17.02.2024), when the special meeting took place, the petitioner absented herself and in that background, chose not to answer to the charges made in the requisition. Thus, the petitioner cannot take help of the Sindhu Devi and Anr. (supra) case in support of her

¶320

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 46/50

¶321

contention.

¶322

On the other hand, there is direct decision of Sabila Khatoon and Anr. (supra) wherein the Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that the rule does not provide that the request has to be delivered to the Chief Councillor personally. The Court further held that the requirement of serving of requisition personally on the Chief Councillor otherwise is not possible as the person against whom ‘No Confidence Motion’ is proposed can always can go on hiding and/or delay the receipt of requisition defeating the very purpose of the requisition itself.

¶323

Further, the Division Bench judgment in Dharamsheela Kumari vs. Hemant Kumar and Ors. reported in 2021 (3) PLJR 346 , has made it clear that any meeting where the motion has not been put to vote, it shall not be considered as concluded meeting and as such there is no bar in convening the fresh meeting.

¶324

Paragraphs 117 and 118 of the Dharamsheela Kumari (supra) jdugment read as follows:-

¶325

117 . Having gone through the submissions put to this Court in detail, the Court finds that the allegation of fraud was not established and the Pramukh and the Requisitionists could not have

¶326

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 47/50

¶327

been said to have committed a fraud on the system; the words of Section 44(3)(i) have to be read in conjunction with one another and the majority required to put a motion to vote is from amongst the members of the Samiti present and voting; the logical conclusion of a motion is 'voting upon' the same, and since no vote took place in the meeting dated 10.08.2018, the motion cannot be said to have been 'brought' and consequently, the bar of Section 44(3)(ii) is not attracted.

¶328

118 . Thus the questions are answered as under:

¶329

Issue No.(i):- The provision of Section 44 of the Patna High Court L.P.A No.113 of 2020 dt.28 -06-2021 Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 is an independent and stand alone Section, a complete code in itself.

¶330

Issue No.(ii):- The procedure prescribed under the provisions of Section 46 of the Act for convening a special meeting is neither applicable nor can it be read into for the meeting stipulated under Section 44 of the Act.

¶331

Issue No.(iii):- Under Section 44(3) of the Act majority required to put the motion to vote is amongst the members of the Panchayat Samiti present and voting. No minimum quorum is required for putting the

¶332

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 48/50

¶333

motion of no confidence to vote.

¶334

Issue No.(iv):- Section 44(3) of the Act mandates a motion of no confidence to be put to vote by way of a secret ballot.

¶335

Issue No.(v):- The impugned action, i.e. resolution dated 10.08.2018 is in fraction of the provisions of the Act and as such is quashed and set aside.

¶336

Issue No.(vi):- Section 44 of the Act does not mandate the Requisitionists necessarily to be present in the meeting called to discuss and put to vote the motion of no confidence.

¶337

Issue Nos. (vii) & (viii):- In the given facts, Patna High Court L.P.A No.113 of 2020 dt.28 -06-2021 absence of the Requisitionists cannot be said to be an act of fraud with an endeavour of defeating the provisions of the Statue.

¶338

Issue No.(ix):- In the absence of the motion being put to vote, the legal bar of moving a fresh motion of no confidence stipulated under Section 44(3)(ii) would not be attracted.

¶339

Issue No.(x):- In the attending facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the acts of the Executive Officer are deliberate

¶340

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 49/50

¶341

leading to dereliction of duty warranting initiation of an enquiry with regard to his act and conduct.

¶342

( Bold by this Court )

¶343

The special meeting dated 29.01.2024 having interfered with by the coordinate Bench (in CWJC No.960 of 2024) , no meeting took place, it cannot thus be counted as the concluded meeting thus prohibiting any fresh special meeting.

¶344

It is a sad day for the democracy that despite the ‘Pramukh’ having lost the confidence of the majority of elected members of the Panchayat Samiti, Brahmpur as early as in the first week of the year 2024, the ‘No Confidence Motion’ passed against her in the seventh week of the said year (17.02.2024), she has ensured that no new ‘Pramukh’ takes the vacant seat even in the 35^th week of this year when the writ petitions are being heard. The citizen of the said Panchayat who elected these Panchayat Members are suffering and are merely watching the episode from the side benches.

¶345

The ‘No Confidence Motion’ has been passed against the petitioner, the seat is vacant, pursuant to order dated 18.03.2024, the respondent District Magistrate, Buxar has passed an order on 03.04.2024 rejecting the claim of the

¶346

Patna High Court CWJC No. 3076 of 2024 dt.06-09-2024 50/50

¶347

petitioner. In that background, the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna is under obligation to announce the date of election for the vacant post of ‘ Pramukh ’ of the Brahmpur Panchayat Samiti, Buxar in the next seven days.

¶348

Time has now come to clear the deck. The entire facts and circumstances takes this Court to only one conclusion, both the writ petitions are fit to be dismissed.

¶349

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No Cost.

¶350

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶351

vinayak/-

¶352

AFR/NAFR	AFR
CAV DATE	27.08.2024
Uploading Date	06.09.2024
Transmission Date

Usha @Usha Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha @Usha Devi v. The State of Bihar

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

Dhananjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vinod Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Kumar Gupta @ Anil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Jatan Raw Arya Vs The State Election Commission

Mahesh Rai @ Mahesh Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Shravan Rai Vs The State of Bihar