Patna High Court
Madhubala Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 January, 2015
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.613 of 2015
With
I.A. No.438 of 2015
===========================================================
Madhubala Singh, wife of Sri Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, resident of Village,
P.O. and P.S.- Paharpur, District- East Champaran at Motihari, Pramukh of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Paharpur, P.O. & P.S.- Paharpur, District- East Champaran at
Motihari.
.... .... Petitioner/s
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, East Champaran at Motihari, District- East
Champaran at Motihari.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Areraj, District- East Champaran at Motihari.
6. The Block Development Officer, Paharpur -cum- Executive Officer, Block
Panchayat Samiti, Paharpur, District- East Champaran at Motihari.
7. Smt. Sangeeta Devi, wife of Sri Prem Gupta, Up- Pramukh of Block
Panchayat Samiti, Paharpur, P.O. & P.S.- Paharpur, District- East Champaran
at Motihari.
8. Sri Pappu Singh, son of not known to the petitioner.
9. Smt. Mithilesh Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner.
10. Sri Bachchan Das, son of not known to the petitioner.
11. Sri Ravi Kant Singh, son of not known to the petitioner.
12. Sri Tej Narayan Prasad, son of not known to the petitioner.
13. Sri Sudama Prasad, son of not known to the petitioner.
14. Smt. Devanti Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner.
15. Smt. Usha Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner.
16. Smt. Aasani Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner.
17. Smt. Mariyam Khatoon, wife of not known to the petitioner.
18. Sri Lakhan Singh, son of not known to the petitioner.
19. Sri Abhishek Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner.
20. Sri Ramayan Ram, son of not known to the petitioner.
21. Sri Shivdeni Hajara, son of not known to the petitioner.
22. Sri Noorul Imam, son of not known to the petitioner.
23. Sri Iqbal Hussain, son of not known to the petitioner.
24. Smt. Sita Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner.
25. Smt. Sayeeda Khatoon, wife of not known to the petitioner.
26. Smt. Kalwati Devi, wife of not known to the petitioner.
Respondent nos.7 to 26 are the elected Members of the Block Panchayat
Samiti, Paharpur through the Block Development Officer -cum- Executive
Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Paharpur, P.O. & P.S.- Paharpur, District-
East Champaran at Motihari.
27. The State Election Commission (Panchayat) through the State Election
Commissioner, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K. Manglam
Mr. Chandan
Patna High Court CWJC No.613 of 2015 dt.21-01-2015 2
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Purnendu Singh, GP-27
For the Requisitionists : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh
For the State Election Commission: Mr.. Girish Pandey
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 21-01-2015
Although this matter is listed under the heading 'For orders
on petitions' but with the consent of the parties it has been taken up
with a view to its final disposal at this stage itself by way of this
judgment.
This matter was taken up yesterday for consideration of the
prayer made by the petitioner on the issue of grant of interim relief
when Mr. S.B.K. Manglam appeared for the petitioner, the State was
represented by Mr. Purnendu Singh, learned Government Pleader
No.27, the State Election Commission was represented by Mr.
Girish Pandey and Mr. Bindhyachal Singh registered his appearance
for respondent no.7 but submitted that he would be registering
appearance for other requisitionists that the matter was passed over
and has been taken up today when Mr. Bindhyachal Singh submits
that he is filing Vakalatnama for the remaining requisitionists.
The issue raised in the writ petition is limited to the
infirmity in the requisition addressed to the petitioner who happens
to be the Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Paharpur, District- East
Champaran. According to the petitioner, the requisition is not in tune
with the provisions underlying section 44(3) (i) of the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.613 of 2015 dt.21-01-2015 3
Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
inasmuch as though addressed to the Pramukh, it is routed through
the Executive Officer which is not in tune with the mandate of law.
It is submitted that although the statutory provisions while requiring
presentation of the requisition to the Pramukh also casts an
obligation of service of a copy of the requisition on the Executive
Officer of the Panchayat Samiti but the same does not mean that the
requisition has to be routed through the Executive Officer and which
fact is also manifest from the copy of the requisition placed at
Annexure-1.
Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the
requisitionists while admitting to the infirmity in the requisition
submits that the requisitionists may be permitted to serve a fresh
requisition in its proper form on the Pramukh. He submits that a
fresh requisition would be served on the Pramukh by Friday, i.e.
23.1.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same would be accepted and whereafter the petitioner would proceed to fix the date of special meeting.
Since the infirmity pointed out in the requisition stands accepted and a consensus has been reached between the Pramukh and the requisitionists that a fresh requisition would be served on the petitioner by 23.1.2015 which would be received by her and whereafter she would proceed to fix the date of special meeting the Patna High Court CWJC No.613 of 2015 dt.21-01-2015 4 requisition placed at Annexure-1 stands set aside. In case the petitioner fails in her undertaking to receive the requisition and to fix the date of special meeting then the requisitionists shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter in terms of the statutory provisions for effecting the service of requisition as well as fixing the date of special meeting for moving the no confidence motion.
The writ petition is allowed with the direction/liberty aforementioned. The interlocutory application stands disposed of.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-
U NAFR