Sheikh Hassmuddin And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14526 of 2014 With Interlocutory Application No. 6459 of 2014 With Interlocutory Application No. 157 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Sheikh Hassmuddin S/o Sheikh Wasiuddin R/o Village + P.O. Jogiya, P.S. Ramnagar, District West Champaran, at present Prakhand Up Pramukh Ramnagar.

2. Mansha Bharti W/o Sri Ashok Ram R/o Village Pachrukhia, P.O. Dumaria, P.S. Ramnagar, District West Champaran, at present Prakhand Pramukh Ramnagar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna.

2. District Magistrate, West Champaran.

3. District Panchayat Officer, District West Champaran.

4. Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Ramnagar, West Champaran.

5. Executive Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ramnagar.

........ Respondents 1st Set.

6. Mr. Suresh Prasad S/o Not known

7. Shri Chansi Pandit S/o Not known

8. Smt. Kishori Devi W/o Not known

9. Sri Vinod Mahto S/o Not known

10. Sri Lakhan Ram S/o Not known

11. Sri Naushad Ali Akhari S/o Not known

12. Sri Nami Ram S/o Not known

13. Sri Ramesh Mahto S/o Not known

14. Sri Rajesh Kumar Nag S/o Not known

15. Smt. Joniya Devi W/o Not known

16. Smt. Ranju Devi W/o Not known

17. Smt. Dhupa Devi W/o Not known

18. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Not known

19. Smt. Usha Devi W/o Not known

20. Smt. Reshma Khatun W/o Not known

21. Smt. Savita Devi W/o Not Known

22. Smt. Indu Devi W/o Not known

23. Smt. Gayatri Devi W/o Not Known null

24. Sri S. Sarfuddin S/o Not known

25. Sri Vinod Ram S/o Not known

26. Sri Sanjay Kumar Rao S/o Not known

27. Smt. Panna Devi W/o Not known Respondent No. 6 to 27 are all members of Ram nagar Panchayat Samiti, Ram nagar through D.B.O.-cumExecutive Officer, Ram Nagar (West Champaran). .... .... Respondent 2nd Set ======================================================

2 / 5 Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv. For the Respondent-State: Mr. Sandip Singh, A.C. to G.P.9 For the private respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 10-02-2015 Heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned Senior counsel for the private respondents. The petitioners have questioned the no confidence motion passed against them on 14.8.2014, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Whereas the petitioner No.1 happens to be the Up-Pramukh of the Ram Nagar Panchayat Samiti in the District of West Champaran, the petitioner No. 2 Mansha Bharti is the Pramukh of the Samiti.

Mr. Mishra has questioned the motion primarily on the following three grounds:

(a) The requisition present at Annexure-3 was not presented to the petitioner No.2, the Pramukh, in the manner prescribed under Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') (b) The charges are vague; and (c) There is no discussion in the special meeting on the

3 / 5 allegations.

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

In so far as the issue of presentation is concerned, the argument fails in view of the admission of the petitioner himself in the representation addressed to the Block Development Officer - cum- Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti present at Annexure-5 to the writ petition in which he has admitted to receipt of the requisition by speed post on 18.7.2014. As to what would constitute a presentation of a requisition, this issue stands discussed in the judgment of this Court rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 11142 of 2014 (Amit Kumar Vs. State) and which judgment stands affirmed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1074 of 2014.

Though the judgment is in connection with the service of requisition under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and the Bihar No Confidence Motion Rules, 2010 on the Chief Councillor but the prescription of law in the two statutes i.e. Rule 2(i) of the Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Rules and Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act are the same and require the requisition to be presented to the functionary head.

4 / 5 deliberate avoidance and in such circumstances it would not be an infirmity for the requisitionist to file the requisition in the office of the Executive Officer for its onward presentation to the Pramukh. The requisition can also be presented to the Pramukh by way of speed post for 'the Act' no where prohibits such service or can be served in the manner provided under Order 5 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The focal point and legislative intendment is that the requisition should reach the Pramukh and he is made aware of the motion. Once this is established then the manner of service becomes irrelevant.

In so far as the case in hand is concerned, admittedly, the requisition has reached the petitioner by way of speed post and which would constitute a valid presentation as per statutory requirement.

The argument of Mr. Mishra also does not sustain on the vagueness of allegation. The requisition present at Annexure-3 names no less than six charges against the Pramukh and the UpPramukh and it is in the backdrop of such allegations that the members of the Panchayat Samiti have expressed no confidence in the Pramukh and the Up-Pramukh. Whether they held good or not was a matter to be discussed in the special meeting and a perusal of the proceedings in the special meeting manifest that all these

5 / 5 allegations were discussed and were supported by the members present in the meeting except the Up-Pramukh. The Pramukh absented herself from the meeting. It is following the discussion that Secret Ballots took place and in which the petitioners have been voted of. Thus not only the members have considered the allegations and discussed it but have also voted to support the motion expressing no confidence in the petitioners. My observation aforementioned would answer the other issues also raised by Mr. Mishra regarding absence of discussion. The minutes of special meeting does manifest that the allegations were read out and were discussed and whereafter the members except the Up-Pramukh supported the motion.

For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the writ petition requiring indulgence. It is accordingly dismissed. The interlocutory applications stands disposed of. Bibhash/- (Jyoti Saran, J) U