SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Pat) 711

BARIN GHOSH
Bindu Devi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Judgment

Barin Ghosh, J.

1. A requisition was submitted to the petitioner, who was the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti. The requisitionists requested the petitioner to convene a meeting to remove the petitioner from the post of Pramukh and also to remove the Up-Pramukh. The petitioner did not issued the notice convening such meeting. The requisitionists then approached the Executive Officer who convened such a meeting. The first ground of challenge of holding of this meeting pursuant to the said notice is that the reasons for the motion had not been indicated in the notice.

2. It is true, as will appear from a bare perusal of the notice, that the reasons in support of the motion had not been indicated in the notice. The notice also does not say that a copy of the requisition is being annexed with the notice. Therefore, It is true that the notice did not convey the reasons. It appears to be the legislative mandate that such reasons must accompany the notice. However, the petitioners cannot defeat the notice nor can have the same declared invalid for the notice did not convey the reasons in support thereof inasmuch as the object of giving reasons is to enable the members to know why t





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top