JUDGMENT :

In this writ application the two petitioners are seeking quashing of notice vide letter no. 1827 dated 17.07.2018 issued by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti cum-Block Development Officer, Bagaha - 1, West Champaran by which a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti Members for discussion on “No Confidence Motion” against the Pramukh (respondent no. 34) was fixed on 21.07.2018. The petitioners are also seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the letter no. 1853 dated 21.07.2018 issued by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti cum-Block Development Officer, Bagaha - 1, West Champaran whereby one vote casted in the meeting was declared cancelled and accordingly the no confidence motion against the Pramukh (respondent no. 34) was defeated.

2. The prayer of the petitioners is to declare that the entire procedure adopted by the Executive Officer Panchayat Samiti is illegal and is a result of conspiracy hatched between the Pramukh and the officer concerned to defeat the special meeting of no confidence.

Brief Facts

3. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioners are the elected members of the Panchayat Samiti, Block Bagaha – I, West Champaran from area no. 13 and 31 respectively. After declaration of the result, in a meeting of the elected members, Lalita Devi (respondent no. 34) was elected as Block Pramukh.

4. On 09.07.2018, a requisition addressed to Pramukh with copy to Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti was submitted. There were allegations against the respondent no. 34. A special meeting to discuss “No Confidence Motion” against respondent no. 34 was sought to be convened. The respondent no. 34 gave her consent on 17.07.2018 for fixing a special meeting on 21.07.2018. Meeting was accordingly held on 21.07.2018. Out of total 35 numbers of members, 19 members were present in the Meeting. 17 Members voted in favour of the Motion, one against Motion and one vote was cancelled. Since the number of votes in favour of Motion fell short of required ‘18’ votes to pass the Motion, the Motion failed.

Submission of the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned notice for convening the special meeting dated 17.07.2018 is in the teeth of the provisions as contained under Section 44 of the Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and as such it requires interference by quashing the said notice.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as Private Respondents have opposed the writ application. It is stated that so far as these two petitioners are concerned, they have no locus standi to maintain the present writ application.

7. In course of hearing, attention of this court has been drawn towards Annexure ‘E’ to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 5. Annexure ‘E’ is the attendance register of the special meeting held on 21.07.2018. It shows that both the petitioners were present in the meeting and they had signed the attendance register at serial no. 23 and serial no. 04 respectively. It is also pointed out from the minutes of the meeting recorded in Annexure ‘E’ that both these petitioners had spoken in the meeting and had supported the allegations against the Pramukh, thereafter voting had taken place. 17 votes were casted in favour of the “No Confidence Motion”, one vote was casted against the motion whereas one vote was cancelled because in both the columns of the ballot paper cross mark was put. The reasons for rejection of the vote is also provided in Annexure ‘E’.

8. In the aforesaid circumstance learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of Neetu Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar (CWJC No. 13513/2018) decided on 14.03.2019 wherein this court has, after taking note of the conduct of the petitioner in the said case refused to grant discretionary relief in it’s writ jurisdiction. The court came to a conclusion that even if Section 44 (3)(1) of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 2006 is mandatory in nature, the con