High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Urmila Devi vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 December, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Urmila Devi vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 December, 2010
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                CWJC No.14614 of 2010
1. URMILA DEVI W/O SRI PREMCHAND CHAUDHARY R/O
VILL.- SIRDALA, P.O. AND P.S.- SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA,
PRESENTLY PRAMUKH OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA
                       Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA DISTT.- NAWADA
5. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, NAWADA
DISTT.- NAWADA
6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAULI, DISTT.-
NAWADA
7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-EXECUTIVE
OFFICER BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, SIRDALA, DISTT.-
NAWADA
8. SRI ARJUN SAO S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
PRESENTLY UP-PRAMUKH OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT
SAMITI, SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA
9. SMT. SARASWATI DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
DISTT.- NAWADA
10. SMT. KAMLA DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
DISTT.- NAWADA
11. SRI RAMCHANDRA RAJBANSHI S/O NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT
SAMITI, SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER, SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA
12. SRI BAL CHANDRA RAJBANSHI S/O NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT
SAMITI, SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER, SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA
13. SMT. ARUNA DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
DISTT.- NAWADA
14. SMT. GAYATRI DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
                 2




SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
DISTT.- NAWADA
15. SMT. SARITA DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
DISTT.- NAWADA
16. SRI BRAHMDEO PRASAD S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
DISTT.- NAWADA
17. MD. MOIM S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, SIRDALA,
DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER-
CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA, DISTT.-
NAWADA
18. SRI DILIP KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
DISTT.- NAWADA
19. SMT. PARIYA DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
DISTT.- NAWADA
20. SMT. AJMERI KHATOON W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
DISTT.- NAWADA
21. SMT. SUSHMA DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
DISTT.- NAWADA
22. SRI LALOO PRASAD TANTI S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
DISTT.- NAWADA
23. SRI RAJENDRA RAM S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
DISTT.- NAWADA
24. SMT. URMILA DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
                                       3




                 SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
                 OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
                 DISTT.- NAWADA
                 25. SMT. KANTI DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
                 PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
                 SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
                 OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
                 DISTT.- NAWADA
                 26. SRI RAM BALAK SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
                 PETITIONER MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI,
                 SIRDALA, DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
                 OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA,
                 DISTT.- NAWADA
                 27. SMT. NILU DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
                 MEMBER OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT SAMITI, SIRDALA,
                 DISTT.- NAWADA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER-
                 CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALA, DISTT.-
                 NAWADA
                                                -----------

5. 7.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

for the State and for the private respondents.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice

dated 30.8.2010, issued by the Block Development

Officer directing the petitioner as a Pramukh to

convene a special meeting for discussion on the No

Confidence Motion moved against her by the private

respondents.

Counsel for the petitioner makes a

limited submission with regard to the provision of

Section 44(3)(v) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), that the notice

does not mention the reasons/charges on which the

No Confidence Motion was proposed to be moved. It

is next submitted that on the face of the notice, the
4

requirement under Section 44(4) of the Act does not

stand fulfilled as seven clear days notice of the

special meeting has not been given. The notice dated

30.8.2010 directs convening of the meeting on

1.9.2010.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf

of the Block Development Officer which does not deal

or answer the issues of fact raised on behalf of the

petitioner. Likewise, counsel for the private

respondents is also not in a position to satisfy the

Court of compliance with statutory requirement for

summoning of the meeting.

The requisition dated 30.8.2010 being

contrary to the Act is not sustainable. It is

accordingly set aside and any resolution passed on

basis of the same is therefore also set aside.

                         Nothing    in    this     order     precludes

           democracy from working.

                         The application is allowed.


P. Kumar                                           ( Navin Sinha, J.)