Ravi S.Dhavan, J.

1. The nuances of democracy come with experience and long standing usage and practices. Democracy is a phenomenon which is absorbed by a political system. It cannot be injected as a wonder drug to give an instant effect. Losing the experience of democracy is as dangerous as losing democracy itself. The present case is an example which shows the aftermath of Bihar not having self Government for three decades, and its effect. Mob majority has been misunderstood as democracy. This case is about an elected Pradhan of a Panchayat bundled out of his office contrary to the rule of law.

2. One Shaligram Singh brought a petition with a grievance that a motion of no confidence had been brought against him without specifying any misdemeanour or charges upon which the motion had been acted upon. it was on a requisition dated 24 August, 2001. The Executive Officer convened a meeting on 17 September, 2001 and thereafter this meeting was chaired by the Circle Officer, Piparia in the absence of Block Development Officer. It was rescheduled for 21 September, 2001. Thereafter, on the date when this meeting was scheduled i.e., 21 September, 2001 it was chaired by the Uppramukh. A motion of no confidence was brought by one of the members of the Panchayat Samiti, one Mr. Ramakant Sharma and was supported by three lady members Mrs. Anita Kumari, Mrs. Sukumari Devi and Mrs. Sindhu Devi. The motion was carried. Thereafter, by a letter no. 219 dated 21 September, 2001 the day of the meeting itself, the Block Development Officer, Piparia removed the petitioner as Pramukh of the Piparia Block Panchayat.

3. On the writ petition the learned Judge noticed the record and found that the notice or the requisition (24 August, 2001) which was the very foundation of the motion of no confidence did not indicate the ground, the basis or the proposition on which the action for a motion of no confidence was contemplated. In the face of a groundless and a baseless requisition, the motion of no confidence was quashed by the learned Judge and the writ petition of the Pramukh of the Panchayat was allowed.

4. The present letters patent appeal has been filed by the three lady members of the Panchayat, who supported the notice upon which the motion of no confidence was to be considered. The mover of the motion, as mentioned earlier was, one Ramakant Sharma with the support of these three ladies. Having succeeded in his mischief until the motion of no confidence was quashed, Ramakant Sharma took a back seat. The UpPramukh apparently was part of this manoeuvering in local politics of the village. He has made himself only one of the appellants in this letters patent appeal as if engineering a situation that the drivers seat he has been put into, should not be disturbed. This is all petty intrigue in grass root politics in which the local Government officials have also participated.

5. The court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the four appellants aggrieved on the order of the writ petition quashing the notice to bring in a motion of no confidence. The matter has been argued strenuously. The themes of the arguments have been basically three; (a) that the majority participated in the meeting on the motion of no confidence and that majority is democracy (b) if charges and allegations are not mentioned in the requisition or notice seeking a motion for no confidence, the requisition is neither bad nor defective under the Act . and (c) there is no obligation to specify the charges in the notice seeking a motion for no confidence.

6. In these circumstances, what is relevant is to see the very genesis of the motion of no confidence which was to be faced by the Pramukh. The notice as was presented and addressed to the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Piparia is reproduced: w 01 farrar 4.9.2001 farfWT JPJBTI irMfa TEIFTrT TlfafiT 1RW fftfar THIS! faW :&\ fa ART MWI«I *TT f^K fa*TCfl fcw 24.8.2001 ^t iHUd ^fafcT *tf cfrT ITTfaT *) **! T*rT S