2021 Supreme(Pat) 283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sanjay Karol, S. Kumar, JJ.
Dharamsheela Kumari & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Hemant Kumar & Ors. - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 113 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20751 of 2018
Decided On : 28-06-2021

Headnote:

Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 – Sections 44 and 46 – Convening of special meeting to discuss and vote no-confidence motion – Section 44 is a standalone Section operating in a different context, for a separate and distinct purpose – Principles of natural justice are necessary to be complied with since reasons/charges forming basis of no-confidence motion are clearly required to be mentioned in notice of meeting and to be read out before declaring it open for discussion – Object of convening a meeting, be it by whatever name, both under Section 44 and 46 is distinct and separate, and as such, expression 'special meeting' under Section 44 cannot be read to be very same meeting as envisaged under Section 46(3) or Section 44(5) – No confidence is a process that has individual and sequential steps – Expressions of want of confidence can happen only when motion is actually voted upon – Mere tabling of requisition or discussion will not amount to motion being carried to a logical conclusion – Letter and spirit of law will be done to justice only when motion is put to vote – Under provisions of Act, it was prerogative of Pramukh to convene a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against her, which includes fixing date, time and location for such a meeting – However, in case when Pramukh abdicates her responsibility to do so, Up-Pramukh or 1/3rd of elected members of Committee may prescribe a date and convey it to Executive Officer to make suitable arrangements, which was not the case in instant matter – As motion initiated by Original Requisition tabled in proceedings was necessarily to be voted upon, which did not take place, all resulting consequences stand vitiated – Also subsequent election of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh are declared to be null and void. (Paras 45, 53, 62, 69, 107, 111 and 120)

Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 – Sections 44 and 46 – Convening of special meeting to discuss and vote no-confidence motion – Procedure prescribed under provisions of Section 46 of Act for convening a special meeting is neither applicable nor can it be read into for meeting stipulated under Section 44 of Act – Under Section 44(3) of Act majority required to put the motion to vote is amongst members of Panchayat Samiti present and voting – No minimum quorum is required for putting the motion of no-confidence to vote – Section 44(3) of Act mandates a motion of no-confidence to be put to vote by way of a secret ballot – Section 44 of Act does not mandate Requisitionists necessarily to be present in meeting called to discuss and put to vote the motion of no-confidence. (Para 118)

Interpretation of Statute – To declare an Act invalid it must be violative of Constitution of India – If provision is arbitrary, ultra vires or unconstitutional it can be declared as such, notwithstanding underlying laudable object – Where language of Act is clear and explicit, court must give effect to it, whatever may be consequences, for in that case words of statute speak intention of legislature – Merely because a question has a political colour, Court cannot fold its hands in despair and declare Judicial hands off – Preamble is key to understanding the Act – However, only when language of Statute is not clear, same be referred to – Mimansa Principle of Literal Rule would prevail over all other principles – Presumption is in favour of a correct legislation – Interpretation must depend on text and context – No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation – Statutes are always speaking – Intention of legislature must prevail – Unless contrary interpretation appears, words should be interpreted if they can be comprehended – Question as to whether a statute is directory or mandatory would not depend upon phraseology used therein – Principle as regards nature of statute must be determined having regard to the purpose and object statute seeks to achieve. (Para 15)

Interpretation of Statute – General provisions must yield to specific provision within very same statute – Intent of legislature in matter of placement of sections also needs to be gone into since a later section will carry its effectiveness in the event of contraintention expressed in an earlier provision of statute – In construction of a statute duty of court is limited to interpreting words used by legislature and it has no power to fill any gaps disclosed – If a gap is disclosed, remedy lies in an amending Act and not in a 'usurpation of legislative function under thin disguise of interpretation. (Paras 18 and 19)

Interpretation of Statute – Rule of Purposive Construction – When words in statute are reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, object and purpose of statute, a general conspectus of its provisions and context in which they occur might induce a court to adopt a more liberal or a more strict view of provisions, as the case may be, as being more consonant with underlying purpose – Rules of purposive construction have to be resorted to which would require construction of Act in such a manner so as to see that object of Act is fulfilled, which in turn would lead beneficiary under statutory scheme to fulfill its constitutional obligations – All regulations must be given a harmonious interpretation – Court of law should not presume a casus omissus but if there is any, it shall not supply the same – If two or more provisions of a statute appear to carry different meanings, a construction which would give effect to all of them should be preferred. (Paras 22 and 23)

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Power of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution, if discretionary, shall be judicious and reasonable – Relief under Article 226 of Constitution shall rest upon conduct of person seeking relief. (Para 116)