Rambha Sinha vs State Of Bihar - 2004 Supreme(Pat) 419

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(Pat) 419

PATNA HIGH COURT
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.
Rambha Sinha
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 702 of 2002 ;
Decided On : APRIL 12, 2004

Headnote:Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993-Section 44(3) & (4)-Meetings of Panchayat Samiti-The Pramukh has to take the decision to call a special meeting upon the written request of not less than one-third of the total number of members sufficiently in advance so as the notice of the meeting conforms to the requirement of seven clear days notice-The members who had given the requisition to call a special meeting shall not have to wait for fifteen days from the date of receipt of such request by the Parmukh but on expiry of such time which shall not permit seven clear days notice, it shall be deemed that the Parmukh had failed to call a special meeting and the one-third of total number of members or the Up Parmukh may call the special meeting with a rider that the special meeting shall be held on a day not more than fifteen days after presentation of such request-The authority granted to the Up Pramukh or one-third of the total number of members to call the special meeting for a day not more than fifteen days shall commence on presentation of such request to Pramukh-For computing seven clear days for the notice provided under Section 44(4), the day on which the notice is issued and the date of meeting shall be excluded-The object of the notice being to consider the no confidence motion against an elected person, hence, in order to give sufficient time to the members bringing the notice to convince other members the undesirability of continuance of elected persons and the person elected to convince the members to the futility of such motion, the provisions cannot be said to be directory in nature and the requirement of giving seven clear days notice is mandatory in nature. (Paras 8 to 10)
       Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993-Sections 140 & 38 and Constitution of India-Article 243-O-Petitioner challenging the validity of no confidence motion-Respondent no. 6 elected as Pramukh during the pendency of writ petition-The validity of the motion of no confidence passed against a person cannot be gone into in an election petition contemplated under Section 140 of the Act and in case it is held that election of a person to a seat becoming vacant on account of passing of the no confidence motion cannot be gone into in a writ petition, virtually a person suffering an illegal motion of no confidence shall be remediless-The High Court has jurisdiction to go into the legality or otherwise of the no confidence motion-Executive Officer directed to issue a notice of special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti giving seven clear days notice to consider the no confidence motion-Writ petition allowed. (Paras 31 and 32)
       Interpretation of Statutes-It is sound principle that the legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and the court while considering the provision shall not lean towards a construction which renders the words used by the legislature redundant except for compelling reason-To brush aside words in a statute is not a sound principle of construction and effort has to be made to give meaning to each and every words used by the legislature-`Seven clear days notice-Legislature intended that the day on which notice is sent and the day of meeting is held have to be excluded.
       (Paras 20 to 22)
       Interpretation of Statutes-Doctrine of Reading Down-To effectuate the purpose of the statute doctrine of reading down can be applied on the ground of vagueness or ambiguity in the statute, where the intention of the legislature can be ascertained from the object of the statute, its context and purpose-In the present case, there being no ambiguity, doctrine of reading down is not fit to be invoked. (Para 23)
       AIR 1968 SC 5, AIR 1967 SC 684, AIR 2004 Pat 24, 2004 (1) PLJR 531, 1997 (1) PLJR 509, AIR 1955 Nagpur 35, AIR 1964 Punjab 135, AIR 1957 Raj 388, 1885 (2) Chancery Division (re Railway Sleepers Supply Company), 1936 Chancery Division 208, Shacklaton on the law and Practice of Meeting : (Ninth Edition, Paragraph 5-08(8)].-Referred to.

Judgment

Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. This application has been filed for quashing the notice (Annexure-4) issued by the Executive Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Katra intimating that the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti shall be held on. 7.1.2002 to consider the motion of no confidence brought against the Pramukh. By way of amendment prayer of the petitioner is to quash another notice (Annexure-9) issued by the Executive Officer dated 4.2.2002 conveying that the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti shall be held on 11.2.2002 to consider the motion of no confidence against the Pramukh. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the resolution dated 11.2.2002 whereby the motion of no confidence has been carried out against her.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was elected as the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti, Katra and a requisition (Annexure-1) to convene a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti was given to her to consider the no confidence motion. Petitioner by order dated 29.12.2001 (Annexure-2) rejected the said prayer, inter alia, on the ground that out of 30 members 18 have shown their confidence in her. Ultimately the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti gave notice intimating to the members that special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti shall be held on 7.1.2002 to consider the no confidence motion brought against the petitioner. The meeting as scheduled was held and 15 members voted in favour of the motion and the proceeding indicates that the motion was carried out against the petitioner.

3. It is relevant here to state that total number of elected members of the Panchayat Samiti is 30 and out of that 15 members had shown no confidence against the petitioner and whether that would be sufficient to carry out the no confidence motion, the District Magistrate by his memo dated 14.1.2001 (Annexure-6) sought instruction from the Secretary of the Panchayati Raj Department. The Secretary by his memo dated 30.1.2002 (Annexure- 7) observed that for carrying out the motion of no confidence, 16 members vote is necessary and as such motion of no confidence supported by 15 members shall be deemed to have been defeated.

4. It is the stand of the petitioner that on the basis of the same requisition special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti was fixed on 7.2.2002 and on that date the motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioner. Stand of the answering respondent, however, is that the first requisition was made on 24.1.2001 and on that requisition meeting was held on 31.12.2001 whereas the second requisition was made on 22.1.2002 and on that basis the meeting was held on 7.2.2002 and on that date motion of no confidence was carried out against the petitioner.

5. It is relevant here to state that during the pendency of the writ application, fresh election to the office of the Pramukh was held and by order dated 5.6.2002 same was made subject to the final decision of the present writ application.

6. Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, appearing on behalf of the petitioner had advanced several submissions to assail the impugned resolution but as the writ application is to succeed on a very short point, I deem it inexpedient to either incorporate or answer the same. He submits that notice of the meeting held on 11.2.2002 in which motion of no confidence has been carried out against the petitioner was sent on 4.2.2002 and as such same does not conform to the requirement of sec. 44(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He submits that sec. 44 (4) of the Act contemplates seven clear days notices for holding the special meeting, which would obviously mean that the date on which the notice is sent and the date on which the meeting is held have to be excluded for calculating the number of days. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha with usual brilliance, however, submits that in case the provisions of Sec. 44(3) and (4) of the Act are read together a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(Pat) 419

PATNA HIGH COURTChandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.Rambha SinhaVersusState Of BiharCivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 702 of 2002 ;Decided On : APRIL 12, 2004

Cases Referred (6)

PATNA HIGH COURT
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.
Rambha Sinha
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 702 of 2002 ;
Decided On : APRIL 12, 2004