Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
K.B.N.Singh and M.P.Singh JJ.
Kamlesh Roy
Versus
Rudra Narain Rai
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3048 of 1979 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 2, 1981
PANCHAYAT SAMITI - NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION - VALIDITY - OATH OF OFFICE - REQUIREMENT - TIME LIMIT - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - SECTION 71 OF BIHAR PANCHAYAT SAMITIS AND ZILLA PARISHADS ACT, 1961 - RULE 3 OF BIHAR PANCHAYAT SAMITIS AND ZILLA PARISHADS (CONDUCT OF BUSINESS) RULES, 1963.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Pramukh of Patepur Panchayat Samiti, challenged a resolution of no-confidence removing him from office. He argued that the no-confidence motion was premature as he had taken a valid oath of office only on 11.06.1979, and the motion was brought within six months of that date, in violation of Section 32(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961. Additionally, he contended that the meeting held on 7.10.1979 to consider the no-confidence motion was invalid as it was held on a holiday, contravening Rule 3 of the Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1963.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner's initial oath taken on 11.03.1979 was defective as it did not comply with the form prescribed under Section 71 of the Act. The subsequent oath taken on 11.06.1979 was considered the valid oath, and the six-month period under Section 32(4) commenced from that date. Therefore, the no-confidence motion initiated within this period was premature and invalid. The Court also found that the meeting held on 7.10.1979 was illegal as it violated Rule 3, which prohibited meetings on holidays.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's initial oath taken on 11.03.1979 was valid and sufficient to assume the office of Pramukh. 2. Whether the no-confidence motion brought within six months of the valid oath taken on 11.06.1979 was premature and invalid under Section 32(4) of the Act. 3. Whether the meeting held on 7.10.1979 to consider the no-confidence motion was valid despite being held on a holiday, in contravention of Rule 3 of the Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 71 of the Act and held that the oath taken by the petitioner on 11.03.1979 was invalid as it did not conform to the prescribed form, which required specifying the capacity in which the oath was being taken. The Court emphasized that the oath is not a mere formality but signifies the binding of the individual to the office and its responsibilities. 2. The Court interpreted Section 32(4) of the Act and held that the six-month period during which a no-confidence motion cannot be brought against a Pramukh or Up Pramukh commences from the date of assumption of office after taking a valid oath. Since the petitioner's valid oath was taken on 11.06.1979, the no-confidence motion initiated within six months of that date was premature and invalid. 3. The Court interpreted Rule 3 of the Rules and held that it clearly prohibits the holding of meetings on holidays. The meeting held on 7.10.1979, which was a Sunday, was, therefore, illegal and invalid.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitioner's application and quashed the resolution of no-confidence removing him from the office of Pramukh. No order as to costs was made.
K.B.N.SINGH, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing a resolution of no-confidence dated 7.10.1979, removing the petitioner from the office of Pramukh of Patepur Panchayat Samiti, a copy of which has been filed as Annex. 4.
2. The petitioners case is that on 10.03.1979 he was elected Pramukh of Patepur Panchayat Samiti, hereinafter referred to as "Samiti", by defeating respondent No. 4, Krishna Nandan Prasad Singh, and took oath of office on 11.03.1979 but later it was found that the oath of office administered to the petitioner was not in accordance with Sec. 71 of Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and, therefore, the petitioner had again taken oath on 11.06.1979, as required u/s. 71. The petitioner has averred that respondent No. 1, Rudra Narain Rai, District Development Officer, Hajipur who happens to be the samdhi of respondent No. 4, did not take the defeat of his samdhi sportingly and soon after the election of the petitioner started pressurising respondent No. 2, Paras Nath Choudhary, Prakhand Vikas Padadhikari, Patepur, to see that a vote of no-confidence was passed against the petitioner so that he may be removed from the office of Pramukh. The petitioner has also alleged that respondent No. 2 was not favourably disposed towards the petitioner inasmuch as at the instance of the petitioner an anti-corruption committee has been formed by the District Magistrate, Vaishali, of which the petitioner is a member, and the said committee is enquiring into several allegations of corruption against respondent No. 2 and some Mukhiyas.
3. The petitioner has further alleged that on 27-9-79 respondent No. 4 in league with respondents 1 and 2 sponsored a no-confidence motion which was placed before the petitioner on 2809.1979 (Annexure-1). As there were executive holidays from 28th September to 4.10.1979, and 5/6.10.1979 were declared as special holidays and 7.10.1979, being a Sunday, the petitioner directed the no-confidence motion to be placed for orders on 8.10.1979 (Annex. 2) as no meeting could be held on a holiday. But surprisingly enough on 4.10.1979 respondent No. 2 issued a notice fixing 7.10.1979 as the date of the said meeting of the Samiti to discuss the no-confidence motion signed by 18 persons of the Samiti (Annexure-3). The petitioner was not given any information about the said meeting and the said meeting should not have been held on 7.10.1979, which was a Sunday and a holiday according to Rule 3 of the Bihar Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1963, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules". The petitioner has also alleged that the notice of the said meeting was not served on six members of the Samiti besides the petitioner, namely, Paltan Ram, M.L.A., Sushil Prasad Yadav, Tej Narain Singh, Ganga Choudhary, Srimati Jyoti Devi and Basist Rai. In spite of the aforesaid lacuna the meeting was held on 7.10.79 in which the motion of no-confidence was passed. The petitioner has averred that ten members of the samiti mentioned in para 13 of the petition, had not taken oath of office including respondent No. 4. The petitioner has come to know that respondent No. 3, Up-Pramukh administered oath to some members of the samiti on 7.10.1979, itself, which the petitioner characterised as illegal inasmuch as the meeting was held under R.5 (2) of the Rules for considering the no-confidence motion and not for administering oaths of office. On account of violation of the aforesaid mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules, the petitioner has prayed for declaring the impugned resolution as invalid. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 as well as on behalf of respondent No. 4 to which the petitioner has filed replies. They will be referred to in so far as they are relevant.
4. At the outset a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
