Writ petition challenging a no-confidence motion requisition and special meeting against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of Jale Block Panchayat Samiti. The court applied Dharamshila Kumari: as the motion was not put to vote, Section 44(3)(ii)'s bar on fresh requisitions does not apply. Disposed with that observation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4945 of 2024
======================================================
Versus
Patna High Court CWJC No.4945 of 2024(3) dt.03-09-2024 2/10
Patna High Court CWJC No.4945 of 2024(3) dt.03-09-2024 3/10
Block Panchayat Samiti, Jale through the Block Development Officer-cumExecutive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Jale, P.O. and P.S. Jale, DistrictDarbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awnish Kumar, Adv. For the Res. no. 7 : Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Shweta Anand, AC to GP-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 3 03-09-2024 Heard Mr. Awnish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Shweta Anand, learned AC to GP-13, Mr.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4945 of 2024(3) dt.03-09-2024 4/10
Mukund Mohan Jha representing respondent no. 7.
following reliefs:
“(I)(a) for quashing the requisition dated 28.12.2023 submitted by 11 elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti, Jale and addressed to the Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Jale, whereby and where under the requisitionists had made a grievance from the Pramukh to fix the date of special meeting for consideration of their No Confidence Motion against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of Jale Block Panchayat Samiti on the ground that the said requisition is not a valid requisition in law for non- compliance of the provisions contained under Section 44 (3) (iv) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Gram Panchayat Act).
(b) for quashing the letter of Pramukh, Block Panchayat Samiti, Jale, Respondent no.7 dated 28.12.2023 addressed to the Respondent no.6 ,whereby and where under he was pleased to fix the date of special meeting on 04.01.2024, on the ground that the Pramukh had acted on the basis of requisition which was submitted by his supporter members to frustrate the cause of genuine members, who might have
Patna High Court CWJC No.4945 of 2024(3) dt.03-09-2024 5/10
brought a No Confidence Motion against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh whenever they would have found that the Pramukh and UpPramukh of the Panchayat Samiti are not working properly and they are misusing their power. The said letter of Respondent no.7 was further bad in law since he had fixed the date of special meeting on 04.01.2024 in violation of the provisions contained under Section 46(4) of the Gram Panchayat Act.
(c) for quashing the notice dated 28.12.2023 issued by the Respondent no.6 and contained in his letter no.1546 dated 28.12.2023, whereby and where under he had informed the Pramukh, the Up-Pramukh and all other elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti and they were requested to attend the special meeting of Block Panchayat Samiti convened on 04.01.2024 for consideration of No Confidence Motion against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh, on the ground that there was no seven clear days notice as contemplated under Section 46(4) of the Gram Panchayat Act;
(II) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the Respondent no.6 to produce on record the proceeding of special meeting dated 04.01.2024 of Block Panchayat Samiti, Jale convened for
Patna High Court CWJC No.4945 of 2024(3) dt.03-09-2024 6/10
consideration of No Confidence Motion against the Respondent nos. 7 and 8 and on production the same may be quashed by issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI on the ground that the said special meeting was convened by the Pramukh in connivance with requisitionists to get the motion rejected and confirm his position in the Panchayat Samiti for its remained period for which it was constituted in the election dated 27.12.2021;
(III) for a declaration that since the No Confidence Motion brought against the Respondent nos. 7 and 8 was not put to vote in the special meeting dated 04.01.2024 and, therefore, no decision was taken in the meeting with the exercise of secret voting of the members, the bar under Section 44 (3) (ii) would not come in the way of aggrieved elected members of Block Panchayat Samiti if they found that the removal of the Respondent nos. 7 and 8 is need for one reason or the other;
(IV) for issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/ orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioners would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case. “
Patna High Court CWJC No.4945 of 2024(3) dt.03-09-2024 7/10
took this Court to the special meeting that took place on 04.01.2024 to show that out of 29 members, five were present. However, the motion was not put to vote and it was held that the confidence motion is defeated. This relates to Sahaspur Panchayat under Block Jale in the District of Darbhanga.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4945 of 2024(3) dt.03-09-2024 8/10
22.07.2024 has cited the pendency of the present case and has further averred that he will be taking decision once the writ petition is disposed of.
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 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.
118 . Thus the questions are answered as under:
Issue No.(i):- The provision of Section 44 of the Patna High Court L.P.A No.113 of 2020 dt.28 -062021 Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 is an independent and stand alone Section, a complete code in itself.
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4945 of 2024(3) dt.03-09-2024 9/10
under Section 44 of the Act.
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 motion of no confidence to vote.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Issue No.(x):- In the attending facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the acts of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4945 of 2024(3) dt.03-09-2024 10/10
the Executive Officer are deliberate leading to dereliction of duty warranting initiation of an enquiry with regard to his act and conduct.
observations.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/- U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a fresh requisition for a no-confidence motion is barred when the prior motion was not put to vote in the special meeting.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dharamshila Kumari Vs. Hemant Kumar and othersApplied¶10
2021 (3) PLJR 346
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Lalan Kumar Paswan
Aniket Kumar Mishra
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
The District Magistrate, Darbhanga
Fulo Baitha
Rajiv Roy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
