Rahul Raj Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.616 of 2024

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

Rahul Raj Son of Bipin Kumar Singh Resident of VIP Golambar, VIP school, Mukrera, PS Rivilganj, District Saran at Chapra, Bihar 841301 Presently Pramukh, Rivilganj Block Panchayat Samiti, District Saran at Chapra .

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

District Magistrate-cum-District (Panchayat), Saran at Chapra Election Officer

¶8

Sub-Divisional officer, District Saran at Chapra.

¶9

Block Development Officer Rivilganj-cum-Executive Officer, Rivilganj Block Block Panchayat Samiti, District Saran at Chapra

¶10

Ram Bihari Singh Son of Dindayal Singh, Presently Up-Pramukh of Rivilganj Block Block Panchayat Samiti, District Saran at Chapra.

¶11

Anita Devi Wife of Late Ganesh Sah Presently member of Rivilganj Block Block Panchayat Samiti from territorial constituency no. 1, District Saran at Chapra.

¶12

Manju Devi Wife of Late Naresh Mahto Presently Member of Rivilganj Block Block Panchayat Samiti from territorial constituency no. 2, District Saran at Chapra.

¶13

Laljhari Devi Wife of Ram Avtar Ram Presently member of Rivilganj Block Panchayat Samiti from territorial constituency no. 3, District Saran at Chapra.

¶14

Kanchan Singh Wife of Manoj Kumar Singh Presently Member of Rivilganj Block Panchayat Samiti from territorial constituency no. 4, District Saran at Chapra.

¶15

Shivji Manjhi Son of Baijnath Manjhi Presently member of Rivilganj Block Panchayat Samiti, territorial constituency no. 5, District Saran at Chapra.

¶16

Ashwini Kumar Yadav Son of Ram Anugrah Yadav Presently Member of Rivilganj Block Panchayat Samiti from territorial constituency no. 7, District Saran at Chapra.

¶17

Babita Devi Wife of Binod Singh Presently member of Rivilganj Block Panchayat Samiti from territorial constituency no. 8, District Saran at Chapra.

¶18

Mithiesh Devi wife of Raju Singh Mithiesh Devi(female), aged about 51 years, wife of Raju Singh, Presently member of Rivilganj Block Panchayat Samiti from territorial constituency no. 10, District Saran at Chapra.

¶19

Tejnarayan Singh Son of Ramayan Singh Presently Member of Rivilganj Block Panchayat Samiti from territorial constituency no. 11, District Saran at Chapra.

¶20

State election Commission, Bihar, Patna through its Secretary, 3 (rd) floor, Sone Bhawan, bir chand patel path, Patna

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 2/24

¶22

... ... Respondent/s

¶23

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

¶24

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s	:	Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Singh, Adv Mr. Parijat Saurav, Adv. Mrs. Nikita Mittal, Adv.
For the State	:	Mr. Raghwanand, GA-11 Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to GA-11
For the SEC	:	Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Girish Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondents ===============	: ====	Mr. Manoj Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kr. Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. ===================================

¶25

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶26

8 13-08-2024

¶27

I.A. No. 05 of 2024.

¶28

The present Interlocutory Application has been preferred for incorporating the following reliefs as part of the main writ petition:

¶29

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the proceedings and result of the no- confidence motion held on 11/03/2024 in which the motion of no confidence came to be passed against the petitioner who was the Pramukh and the respondent no. 5 who was the UpPramukh of Rivilganj Panchayat Samiti.

¶30

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the proceedings and result of the proceedings dated 20/07/2024 by which the respondent no. 14 was appointed as Pramukh and

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 3/24

¶32

respondent no. 11 was appointed as Up Pramukh of Rivilganj Panchayat Samiti.

¶33

Considering the prayers in the Interlocutory Application and since there is no opposition from the respondents, I.A. No. 05 of 2024 stands allowed.

¶34

Let the two prayers of the Interlocutory Application No. 05 of 2024 be read as part of the prayers made in the main writ petition.

¶35

CWJC No. 616 of 2024.

¶36

Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur and Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh for the respondent Nos. 7 to 14, Mr. Raghwanand, learned GA11 for the State and Mr. Ravi Ranjan representing the State Election Commission.

¶37

The present writ petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):

¶38

“For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI, for quashing the requisition dated NIL which was submitted by four elected members of the Block Panchayat Samiti, Rivilganj in the office of the Respondent No. 4 in which a request has been made to convene the

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 4/24

¶40

special meeting of the Block Panchayat Samiti, Rivilganj to consider the NO CONFIDENCE MOTION against the petitioner on the ground that neither said requisition is a legal and valid requisition in the eye of law nor other mandatory statutory requirements of provisions contained under Subsection 3 (i) of section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006(herein after to be referred as the Act, 2006) has been followed in as much as statute stipulates for presentation of such requisition before the Pramukh with a copy to the executive officer, the said requisition submitted directly in the office of Respondent No. 4 without presenting it before the petitioner in compliance of the procedure prescribed under Sub-Section 3(i) of section 44 of the Gram Panchayat Act hence same is illegal and fit to be rejected.

¶41

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI, for quashing the notice contained in letter no. 47 dated 08-01-2024 issued under the authority of Respondent No. 4 whereby and where under the all elected members of the Block Panchayat Samiti, Rivilganj were informed that special meeting for consideration of NO CONFIDENCE MOTION as against the writ petitioner, will be held on 19-01- 2024, on

¶42

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 5/24

¶43

the ground that neither the Respondent No.4 has any authority to issue said letter nor said notice does not confirm to statutory requirements of the act, 2006 in as much as same not does contain specific reasons and charges based upon which No Confidence is proposed to be brought against the writ petitioner.

¶44

iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of ad interim stay as against the notice dated 08-01-20245 also proposed special meeting dated 19-01-2024. on the ground that both the notice as also the consequent meeting is illegal in the eyes of law and thus no validity can be assigned to same.

¶45

iv. For a declaration that if statute prescribes a particular act to be done in a particular manner it should be done in that manner alone or not at all and any other mode is not only necessarily prohibited but also constitute illegality.

¶46

v. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner is entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶47

The facts of the case as per the writ petition is/are

¶48

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 6/24

¶49

as follows:

¶50

The petitioner was elected as the ‘Pramukh’ of the Rivilganj Block Panchayat in the District of Chhapra in the year 2021. Two years later, a requisition was made on 29.12.2023 for conducting the special meeting to discuss ‘No Confidence Motion’ against him.

¶51

The case of the petitioner is that he was at Delhi for the check-up and in his absence, the date of the meeting was fixed as 19.01.2024.

¶52

The petitioner rushed to the Patna High Court by filing the present petition and the Co-ordinate Bench on 11.01.2024 stayed the meeting which was convened on 19.01.2024.

¶53

Subsequently, the matter was again heard by the Co-ordinate Bench on 05.02.2024/12.02.2024 and on 12.02.2024, the Court observed that if the party so desire, it may proceed for holding of ‘No Confidence Motion’ after furnishing fresh requisition with clear charges before the ‘Pramukh’.

¶54

The case of the petitioner is that thereafter, the requisitionist submitted the petition on 16.02.2024 before the respondent-Executive Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Rivilganj addressed to the petitioner (Pramukh) with a copy to

¶55

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 7/24

¶56

the respondent No. 4.

¶57

According to him, this requisition dated 16.02.2024 was never served upon him and/or refused at any point of time and for the first time, it was served by the office of the respondent No. 4 vide letter No. 241 dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure R/L to the supplementary counter affidavit of the said respondent no. 1 to 4).

¶58

Learned Senior Counsel submits that on 23.02.2024, the petitioner wanted the respondent no. 4 , the Executive Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Rivilganj to let the requisitionist act in accordance with law so that the same be considered accordingly (Annexure R/M to the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 to 4).

¶59

It is his submission that whether the communication was made with the respondent No. 4 or not does not matter, the fact remains that having been served with the copy of the requisition on 19.02.2024, the petitioner had the 15 days time under Section 44 (3) (i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (henceforth for short, ‘the Act’) to decide on the request.

¶60

At the stage, it would be appropriate to incorporate Section 44 (3) (i) of ‘the Act’ which read as

¶61

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 8/24

¶62

follows.

¶63

“ 44(3)(i) A Pramukh/Up-Pramukh of

¶64

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.

¶65

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

¶66

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 9/24

¶67

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 meeting convened to discuss no confidence motion.”

¶68

Learned Senior Counsel submits that even before

¶69

the 15 days period could have come to an end, on 02.03.2024 itself, the one-third of the elected members fixed the date as 11.03.2024 for the special meeting to consider the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the ‘Pramukh’/ Up-Pramukh.

¶70

It is his submission that the haste with which the requisitionist took the steps violating the 15 days period, the same is in the teeth of the Division Bench judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Munni Khatun Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 352 of 2023) with reference to para 5.

¶71

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 10/24

¶72

Paragraph 5 of the Munni Khatoon (supra) order

¶73

read as follows:

¶74

“5. Section 44 (3) of the Bihar

¶75

Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 specifies that the requisition for a special meeting to consider the no confidence motion 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. The provision then provides that the Executive Officer should immediately bring the requisition to the notice of the Pramukh and the Pramukh should convene such meeting on a date falling within 15 days of such requisition. It is further provided that if the Pramukh fails to call the special meeting, the Up-Pramukh or the requisitionists themselves i.e. one third of the total number of members elected directly, could call for a special meeting. It is crystal clear that the right of the Up-

¶76

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 11/24

¶77

Pramukh or the requisitionists to call for a special meeting would arise only on the expiry of the first fifteen days.”

¶78

Learned Senior Counsel submits that he rest his

¶79

case on this very point inasmuch as:

¶80

(i) pursuant to the direction of the Co-ordinate Bench of Patna High Court in the present case on 12.02.2024, the elected members were required to file fresh requisition with clear charges;

¶81

(ii) it is an admitted fact that it was never served upon him on 16.02.2024, which fact has been accepted by the District Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra in his communication dated 06.05.2024 to the State Election Commission, Bihar (henceforth for short ‘the SEC’).

¶82

(iii) the 15 days period could have ended on 04.03.2024 and thereafter either the ‘Up-Pramukh’ or the one-third of the elected members were free to take decision for holding the special meeting in accordance with ‘the Act’;

¶83

(iv) however, the fact remains that they fixed the date on 02.03.24 itself in clear breach of 15 days period;

¶84

(v) the same is in violation of ‘the Act’ as also the Division Bench Judgment in

¶85

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 12/24

¶86

Munni Khatun (supra) case;

¶87

(vi) as such, it needs interference.

¶88

Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh represents the respondent No. 14, who is the present ‘Pramukh’ having got elected on 20.07.2024 pursuant to the vacancy that arose following the passing of the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner on 11.03.2024.

¶89

According to him, after the order of the Patna High Court on 12.02.2024, the elected members made requisition with clear charges on 16.02.2024 itself. However, as the petitioner chose not to accept the same, it was sent to the respondent-Executive Officer and the endorsement is there in the file to show that it was received on 16.02.2024 itself whereafter the same was sent to the petitioner on 19.02.2024.

¶90

Taking into account the 16.02.2024 as the day the requisition was made, the 15 days period came to end on 01.03.2024 and thus the one-third elected members chose to fix the date on 02.03.2024 itself (following the request of the respondent no. 4) for holding the special meeting on 11.03.2024.

¶91

He submits that subsequently, the meeting took place on 11.03.2024, the ‘No Confidence Motion’ was passed against him, the petitioner lost the seat, election took place on

¶92

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 13/24

¶93

20.07.2024 and the respondent no. 14 is the new ‘Pramukh’. As such, taking into account the date 16.02.2024 as the day when requisition was made and the petitioner refused to accept it, the 15 days period was taken care of. The further submission is that the petitioner having refused to accept the notice on 16.02.2024, subsequently, he cannot hide behind the 15 days mandate. The writ petition is thus fit to be dismissed.

¶94

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur is representing respondent Nos. 6-9 and 11-13, which includes the respondent No. 9, the present ‘Up-Pramukh’.

¶95

He has adopted that submissions put forward by Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh and further submits that the petitioner deliberately avoided the notice dated 16.02.2024 and the elected members were forced to move before the Executive Officer who communicated the same to the petitioner on 19.02.2024. As such the period has to be counted from 16.02.2024 itself and in that background, the one-third members rightly convened the meeting on 02.03.2024.

¶96

Learned State Counsel too echoes the submission of the respondents and submits that the entire process has been taken up in accordance with law. The petitioner despite the order of Patna High Court chose not to co-operate in the matter and in

¶97

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 14/24

¶98

that background, the one-third members fixed the date as 11.03.2024 when the meeting took place and the Pramukh/UpPramukh were ousted following the ‘No Confidence Motion’ passed against them. He thus submits that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

¶99

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of ‘the SEC’ (respondent No. 15) and according to it, as per the report sent by the District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra on 06.05.2024;

¶100

(i) the requisition was made on 16.02.2024 by the elected members;

¶101

(ii) it was sent by the respondent no. 4 to the petitioner vide letter No. 241 dated 19.02.2024;

¶102

iii) the petitioner wanted the same to be submitted in accordance with law;

¶103

iv) thereafter, on 02.03.2024, onethird of the members fixed the date as 11.03.2024. The document has been attached by ‘the SEC’ to its affidavit as Annexure R- 15/4.

¶104

This Court has heard at length the arguments put forward by the respective counsels. The question that arises is whether the petitioner was allowed the 15 days period as per ‘the Act’ to decide on the request made by the requisitionist or not.

¶105

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 15/24

¶106

In this context, it is important to incorporate the letter no. 1193 dated 06.05.2024 issued by the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra to ‘the SEC’ which read as follows:

¶107

veu lehj] Hkk0iz0ls0 lkj.k lekgj.kky;] Nijk Aman Samir, I.A.S. ftyk inkf/kdkjh] ¼ftyk iapk;r “kk[kk½ District Magistrate, lkj.k] NijkA Saran, Chpapra Email ID:[email protected] Website:-https://saran.nic.in

¶108

i=kad%& 1193@ft0 iapk;r fnukad%& 06-05-2024 lsok esa] fo”ks’k dk;Z inkf/kdkjh] jkT; fuokZpu vk;ksx] iVukA fo”ks’k dk;Z inkf/kdkjh fo’k;%& iz[k.M fjfoyxat ds izeq[k ,oa mi izeq[k ds fuokZpu ds laca/k esaA izlax%& jkT; fuokZpu vk;ksx dk i=kad 1590 fnukad 23-03-2024 egk”k;]

¶109

mi;qZDr fo’k;d ,oa izlaxk/khu i= ds vkyksd esa vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] lnj Nijk ls tkWap djk;h xbZ] tkWap izfrosnu ls v/kksgLrk{kjh Hkh lger gSA tkWap izfrosnu fuEuor gS %&

¶110

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa nk;j CWJC No.-616/2024 jkgqy jkt cuke jkT; ljdkj ,oa vU; esa fnukad 05-02-2024 dks ikfjr vkns”k dh dafMdk&05 This court finds that this court will not open up as if holding of ‘No confidence motion’ and the same is the concern of the house, who can proceed with the ‘No confidence motion’.

¶111

iqu% fnukad 12-02-2024 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk lquokbZ ds mijkar U;k;kns”k dh dafMdk&04 esa ikfjr vkns”k bl izdkj gS This parties, if so desire, may proceed for holding of no confidence motion. If required. The requisionists may furnish requisition of clear charges before the Pramukh.

¶112

bl izdkj] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns ” k ds vkyksd esa Jh rst ukjk;.k flag ,oa vU; 06 iapk;r lfefr lnL;ksa }kjk fnukad 16-02-2024 dks fof/kor~ vfo ” okl izLrko gsrq fo ” ks’k cSBd vkgwr djus dk uksfVl@vkosnu iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh dks fn;k x;k gSA

¶113

iapk;r lfefr lnL; ls izkIr vH;kosnuksa dks iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh] fjfoyxat ds lafpdk rFkk i=kad 241 fnukad 19-02-2024 ds lkFk Hkstrs gq, iz[k.M izeq[k

¶114

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 16/24

¶115

Jh jkgqy jkt dks iapk;r lfefr] fjfoyxat dh fo ” ks’k cSBd dh frfFk fu/kkZfjr djus gsrq vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA

¶116

Jh jkgqy jkt] iz[k.M izeq[k fjfoyxat ds }kjk vius i=kad Rev/24 fnukad 2302-2024 ds }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;k fd iapk;r lfefr] fjfoyxat ds lnL;x.k vxj fcgkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 2006 ds v/khu oS/kkfud vko”;drkvksa ds vuq:i dksbZ vf/k;kpuk izLrqr djrs gS rks ml ij vko”;d :i ls fof/kor~ vxzsrj dkjZokbZ dh tk,xhA

¶117

iz”uxr ekeys esa iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh] fjfoyxat ds dk;kZy; i=kad 271 fnukad 23-02-2024 rFkk lafpdk ds ek/;e ls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds ikfjr vkns”kksa dk gokyk nsrs gq, iz[k.M izeq[k ls vfo”okl izLrko ij fo”ks’k cSBd vkgwr djus ds fy, frfFk dk fu/kkZj.k ;Fkk”kh?kz djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k] ijUrq muds }kjk fo”ks’k cSBd dh frfFk miyC/k ugh djk;h xbZA

¶118

bl izdkj iz[k.M izeq[k Jh jkgqy jkt ls fo”ks’k cSBd dh frfFk vizkIr jgus ds dkj.k iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh] fjfoyxat ds }kjk i=kad&292 fnukad 01-03-2024 ds }kjk Jh rst ukjk;.k flag] iapk;r lfefr lnL; izk0fu0{ks0 la[;k&11] iapk;r nf{k.kokjh pDdh] iz[k.M fjfoyxat ls iapk;r lfefr fjfoyxat dh fo”ks’k cSBd vkgwr djus gsrq frfFk dk fu/kkZj.k djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA

¶119

Jh rst ukjk;.k flag ,oa vU; 06 iapk;r lfefr lnL;ksa ds }kjk fnukad 11-032024 dks iapk;r lfefr dh fo”ks’k cSBd vkgwr djus gsrq fnukad 02-03-2024 dks iz[k.M dk;kZy;] fjfoyxat esa vkosnu i= lefiZr fd;k x;kA

¶120

iapk;r lfefr lnL;ksa ls fo”ks’k cSBd vkgwr djus gsrq izkIr vkosnu i= rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] fcgkj] iVuk }kjk fnukad 05-02-2024 rFkk fnukad 12-02-2024 dks ikfjr vkns”k ds vuqikyu esa fcgkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 2006 dh /kkjk&44¼3½¼i½ ds rgr iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh] fjfoyxat ds dk;kZy; i=kad 297 fnukad 02-03-2024 ds }kjk fnukad 11-03-2024 dks iwokZg~u 10%30 cts iz[k.M lHkkxkj] fjfoyxat esa nksuksa inksa izeq[k@mi izeq[k ij vfo”okl izLrko ij ppkZ gsrq fo”ks’k cSBd j[kh xbZA mDr i= dk rkfeyk lHkh iapk;r lfefr lnL;ksa dks djk;k x;kA iz[k.M izeq[k Jh jkgqy jkt dks ifjpkjh }kjk fujarj i= rkfeyk gsrq Hksth xbZ] rkfeyk ugha gksus ij ifjpkjh }kjk muds nksuksa vkokl ds eq[; }kj ij i= dks pLik dj fn;k x;k rFkk fucaf/kr Mkd ls Hkstk x;k tks i= iz[k.M dk;kZy;] fjfoyxat dks okil izkIr gqvkA

¶121

fcgkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 2006 dh /kkjk&44¼3½¼i½ ds rgr iapk;r lfefr fjfoyxat dh fo”ks’k cSBd fnukad 11-03-2024 dks fu/kkZfjr le; ij vkgwr dh xbZ] ftlesa dqy 11 iapk;r lfefr ln;ksa esa ls dsoy 07 iapk;r lfefr lnL; mifLFkr gq,A “ks’k lnL;ksa dh izrh{kk fu;ekuqlkj djus ds i”pkr~ vfo”okl izLrko ij ppkZ gsrq vkgwr fo”ks’k cSBd dh dk;Zokgh vkjaHk dh xbZ rFkk ppkZ ds mijkar dze”k% iz[k.M izeq[k ,oa iz[k.M mi izeq[k ds fo:) yxs vfo”okl izLrko ij fu;ekuqlkj er&foHkktu dh izfdz;k lapkfyr dh xbZ] ftlesa iz[k.M izeq[k Jh jkgqy jkt dks gVk;s tkus ds i{k esa 07 er izkIr gq, rFkk gVk;s tkus ds foi{k esa “kwU; er izkIr gq, ,oa iz[k.M mi izeq[k Jh jke fcgkjh flag dks gVk;s tkus ds i{k esa 07 er izkIr gq, rFkk gVk;s tkus ds foi{k esa “kwU; er izkIr gq,A bl izdkj iz[k.M izeq[k Jh jkgqy jkt ,oa iz[k.M mi izeq[k Jh jke fcgkjh flag dks gVk;s tkus ds i{k esa vfo”okl izLrko ikfjr gqvkA izeq[k rFkk mi izeq[k dk in fjDr gks x;kA lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh dh fofM;ksxzkQh djk;h xbZA

¶122

rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh] lnj }kjk Li’V fd;k x;k gS fd izeq[k o mi izeq[k ij vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj fof/kor~ vfo”okl izLrko ikfjr gks pqdk gS vkSj fjfoyxat izeq[k ,oa mi izeq[k in fjDr gSA bl vk”k; dk izfrosnu dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh ¼ia0l0½ &lg& iz[k.M

¶123

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024

¶124

17/24

¶125

fodkl inkf/kdkjh] fjfoyxat] lkj.k] ds i=kad 327 fnukad 11-03-2024 }kjk izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gS fd vfo”okl izLrko cgqer ls ikfjr gqvkA iz[k.M izeq[k@iz[k.M mi izeq[k iapk;r lfefr fjfoyxat dk in fjDr gks x;k gSA ¼Nk;kizfr layXu½

fo”oklHkktu

ftyk inkf/kdkjh]

lkj.k] NijkA

(Bold by the Court)

¶130

This Court has also perused the original file relating to the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the Pramukh/Up-Pramukh of the Rivilganj, Block- Chapra ( File No. 23-01-2022 ) provided by the respondent no. 4, the Block Development Officer, Rivilganj, Saran. A perusal makes it clear that though the requisition was sent to the office of the Block Development Officer, Rivilganj on 16.02.2024, it was communicated for the first time to the petitioner on 19.02.2024.

¶131

The other facts that are on record shows that:

¶132

i) for the first time, the petitioner received the communication on 19.02.2024;

¶133

ii) on 23.02.2024, it wanted the members to send requisition in accordance with law;

¶134

iii) vide letter no. 292 dated 01.03.2024, the respondent no. 4 requested the elected members to fix the date;

¶135

iv) on 02.03.2024, the one-third members decided to conduct the special meeting on 11.03.2024;

¶136

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 18/24

¶137

v) on the said date (11.03.2024), the special meeting took place and the ‘No Confidence Motion’ passed against Pramukh and Up-Pramukh;

¶138

vi) subsequently, the election took place and the respondent nos. 14 and 9 were elected as Pramukh and Up-Pramukh respectively on 20.07.2024.

¶139

On the day, the election was to take place(20.07.2024), the matter was heard at length by this Court and while directing the respondents to file affidavit as also to keep the original file with the State Counsel itself, though no interim protection was granted to the petitioner, it was recorded that any such election shall be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition.

¶140

From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the 15 days period which the petitioner was entitled to decide on the requisition put forward by the one-third of the elected members of Rivilganj Block Panchayat, Saran was not followed inasmuch as it was for the first time presented before him on 19.02.2024 and before the 15 days period could have come to an end, fresh meeting date was fixed on 02.03.2024.

¶141

This Court, at this stage would further like to take note of the Munni Khatoon (supra) judgement specially paras –

¶142

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 19/24

¶143

6 to 14 which read as follows:

¶144

6. In the present case, the requisition

¶145

was made on 30.12.2023 and the special meeting convened by the requisitionists, as notified by the Executive Officer to the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh was on 12.01.2024, within the fifteen days period.

¶146

7. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is a clear statutory violation insofar as the convening of the meeting is concerned.

¶147

8. However, the Pramukh has also

¶148

failed to comply with the statutory obligation cast on the Pramukh, to call for a meeting within fifteen days; since till 12th, the 13th day, no meeting was scheduled.

¶149

9. Since there is clear statutory

¶150

violation in convening the meeting, where the No Confidence Motion was scheduled; we are of the opinion that the election convened on 22.04.2024 shall not be proceeded with.

¶151

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 20/24

¶152

10. However, it is imperative that the No Confidence Motion be considered immediately. The No Confidence Motion will be considered on 26.04.2024 at 11:00 AM in the Panchayat Bhawan, in the presence of the Executive Officer.

¶153

11. The requisitionists and the appellant, who appear in the case will not be given any further notice. If there are any other Panchayat Samiti Members, who are not parties to the writ petition, then the Executive Officer shall issue notice to them regarding the meeting convened by this Court.

¶154

12. We have taken note of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents about the deliberate falsehood attempted by the petitioner. On going through the entire documents, we are of the opinion that it is better to refrain from making any observation regarding that.

¶155

13. Whatever legal consequences

¶156

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 21/24

¶157

follow, on the decision taken at the meeting will have to be scrupulously complied with.

¶158

14. With the above observation and reservation, the present appeal stands allowed.”

¶159

It is to be noted that aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench fixing the date of special meeting, Munni Khatoon (LPA No. 352 of 2024) preferred S.L.P. (C) 1187 of 2024 which came to be dismissed on 27.05.2024 by the Hon’ble Apex Court after taking note of the fact that the ‘No Confidence Motion’ has been passed.

¶160

From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner first received the request on 19.02.2024 (and not on 16.02.2024), a fact clearly gets confirmed from the letter no. 1193 dated 06.05.2024 issued by the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra to ‘the SEC’.

¶161

Further, even before the 15 days period (taking into account 19.02.2024 as the date of request) could have come to an end, the respondent no. 4 issued the letter no. 292 dated 01.03.2024 requesting the elected members of the Rivilganj Panchayat Samiti to take steps for fixing the date of special meeting.

¶162

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 22/24

¶163

Thus, the fault clearly lies with the respondent no. 4, the Executive Officer-cum-the Block Development Officer, Rivilganj who kept the request dated 16.02.2024 (made by the elected members of the Rivilganj Panchayat Samiti) in his office for three days, communicated to the petitioner on 19.02.2024 but chose to count the 15 days period beginning 16.02.2024. This Court deprecates the action of the respondent no. 4 who is clearly the author of the entire development that subsequently took place.

¶164

Having gone through the facts of the case, the materials on record, the submissions put forward by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsels appearing on behalf of the different respondents, the provisions of ‘the Act’ and the Division Bench Judgment rendered in the Munni Khatoon (supra) case, in the considered opinion of the Court, the 15 days period that the petitioner was entitled to decide on the request dated 19.02.2024 made by the elected members to fix the date for holding of special meeting to discuss the ‘No Confidence Motion’ was breached.

¶165

In that circumstances, the directions given on 02.03.2024 by the elected members to convene the special meeting on 11.03.2024 (to discuss the ‘No Confidence Motion’

¶166

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 23/24

¶167

against the Pramukh/Up-Pramukh) is set aside. The clock is turned back to 02.03.2024 when the petitioner was functioning as ‘the Pramukh’. All subsequent development, i.e. holding of special meeting on 11.03.2024, followed by passing of ‘No Confidence Motion’ as also the election dated 20.07.2024 are declared invalid.

¶168

41.Now that the clock has been turned back to 02.03.2024, the special meeting held on 11.03.2024 will not be considered as the concluded meeting. In that background, the request made by the elected members of the Rivilganj Panchayat Samiti, Saran to the petitioner on 19.02.2024 (to convene the special meeting to discuss ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the ‘Pramukh/Up-Pramukh) gets revived.

¶169

This Court further cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner chose not to fix the date of the special meeting till 12^th to 13^th day. Thus, following the Munni Khatoon (supra) judgment where the Division Bench fixed the date, this Court could have also fixed the date of special meeting of Rivilganj Panchayat Samiti. However, it is refraining from doing so for the simple reason that unlike in Munni Khatoon (supra) case, here subsequent developments took place.

¶170

The ball is in the court of the petitioner. He is in

¶171

Patna High Court CWJC No.616 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2024 24/24

¶172

receipt of the request dated 19.02.2024 alongwith the charges incorporated therein. He as such is duty bound to take a decision on fixing the date of special meeting to discuss the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the Pramukh/Up-Pramukh in the next 15 days.

¶173

Failure to do so, the elected members of the Rivilganj Panchayat Samiti are free to take further steps strictly in accordance with ‘the Act’ to convene the special meeting after the 15 days period comes to an end. The respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra is directed to personally monitor the entire development to bring down the curtains on the entire episode as in all these cat and mouse game between ‘the Pramukh’ and the elected members of the Rivilganj Panchayat Samiti, Saran; for eight months, the people of the said Panchayat Samiti have suffered.

¶174

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶175

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶176

Vijay Singh/-

¶177

U

Rahul Raj v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Raj v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Kumar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Mithilesh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Siddhnath Das @ Sidhnath Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sudhir Kumar Ojha @ Sudhir Kumar Vs Bihar State Bar Council

Sonu Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Aafak Alam Vs The State of Bihar