Sheela Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 July, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Sheela Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 July, 2018

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
               Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14023 of 2018
======================================================
Sheela Devi wife of Sri Baldeo Rai, resident of village and P.O.-
Hargovindpur, P.S.-Mahnar, District- Vaishali at Hajipur
                                                           .... .... Petitioner
                                   Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
    Patna.
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, Vaishali at Hajipur, District-Vaishali at
    Hajipur.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahnar, District-Vaishali at Hajipur.
6. The Block Development Officer, Mahnar-cum- Executive Officer, Block
    Panchayat Samiti, Mahnar, District-Vaishali at Hajipur.
7. Kusheshwar Paswan, son of not known to the petitioner, presently Up-
    Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samity, Mahnar, P.O. and P.S. Mahnar,
    District-Vaishali at Hajipur.
8. Md. Nizam Raza, son of not known to the petitioner.
9. Kameshwar Singh, son of not known to the petitioner
10. Sangita Kumari, wife of not known to the petitioner.
11. Bishwanath Patel, son of not known to the petitioner.
12. Raju Kumar Chaudhary, son of not known to the petitioner.
13. Md. Tahir, son of not known to the petitioner.
14. Putul Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner.
15. Indu Kumari, wife of not known to the petitioner.
16. Pinki Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner.
17. Rama Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner.
18. Basanti Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner.
19. Nitu Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner.
20. Neetu Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner.
21. Khusbu Singh, son of not known to the petitioner
22. Anju Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner.
23. Lal Babu Rai, son of not known to the petitioner.
        Respondent nos. 8 to 23 are the members of Block Panchayat
Samity, Mahnar through the Block Development Officer-cum- Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Mahnar, P.O. and P.S. Mahnar, District-
Vaishali at Hajipur.
24. The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Bihar, through the State
    Election Commissioner.
                                                       .... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s      : Ms. Anita Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s       : Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, GP-10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR
SINGH
ORAL ORDER
       Patna High Court CWJC No.14023 of 2018 (2) dt.25-07-2018

                                                2/3




2   25-07-2018

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the State Election Commission (Panchayat), Bihar through the State Election Commissioner as respondent no.24.

Mr. Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State Election Commission is present in the Court. He accepts notice on behalf of the newly added respondent no.24.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the requisition was submitted by some of the respondents addressed to the Pramukh, but routed through the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer. The law contemplates that such requisition shall be presented before the Pramukh with a copy to the Executive Officer. Since the requisition was addressed to the Pramukh but was submitted before the Executive Officer, the same cannot be treated to be a valid requisition in law. It is further contended that the notice of special meeting convened for consideration of no confidence motion does not contain the reason or charges as required by sub section (3)(iii) of Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. Further, the impugned notice issued by respondent no.6 on 06.07.2018 for convening the special meeting scheduled on Patna High Court CWJC No.14023 of 2018 (2) dt.25-07-2018 3/3 13.07.2018 was not a valid notice in the eye of law in view of sub section (4) of Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 which provides for seven clear days notice for convening a special meeting. On these grounds, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the motion carried on 13.07.2018 against the petitioner who is an elected Pramukh of Mahnar Block Panchayat Samiti is vitiated in law.

Issue notice to respondent nos.7 to 23 both by registered cover with A/D as well as ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within one week failing which the application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.

Put up under the same heading immediately after service of notice upon the respondents.

In the meantime, no election shall be held pursuant to the vacancy created due to removal of the petitioner from the post of Pramukh of Mahnar Block Panchayat Samiti.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Md.S./-

 U           T

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court - Orders