ORDER

Heard Mr. Waliur Rahman along with Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Pd. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 6-10 and Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned GP-2 appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner in the present writ petition is aggrieved by the requisition dated 02.01.2024, submitted by five Panchayat Samiti Members for holding of the special meeting and for quashing the Letter No.05, dated 03.01.2024 in which a request has been made to convey the Special Meeting of the Block Panchayat Samiti to consider the ‘no confidence motion’ against the petitioner and for stay of the Special Meeting dated 16.01.2024. It is contended by Mr. Waliur Rahman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that allegations are not sustainable and requisition has been called by a group of elected members of the committee to topple the petitioner on frivolous charges.

3. In the present case, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, bringing on record a letter no.117/01 dated 02.01.2024, under the signature of the Pramukh, who is the petitioner of the present writ petition. It has been informed in the said letter that in accordance with the provision under Section 44(3) of the Act, a special meeting was scheduled to be held on 16.01.2024 at 11.00 AM in the meeting hall and information to that respect was to be given to all the interested persons.

4. Mr. Rajesh Pd. Choudhary, learned counsel tendered his appearance on behalf of the respondents nos.6-10 submitted that the petitioner after fixing the date of special meeting of ‘no confidence motion’ on 16.02.2024 at 11.00AM has rushed before this Court defeating the very purpose of ‘no confidence motion’. He informs that this Court had interfered into the matter and vide the order dated 11.01.2024 the meeting has been deferred. He submitted that the petitioner being the Pramukh is required to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 of the Act and must not refrain from re-fixing the date of special meeting, after having admitted that a communication made by her as contained in letter no.117/01 dated 02.01.2024 fixing date of special meeting on 16.01.2024.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent nos.6-10 submitted that the petitioner has not stated true facts in her writ petition. He further submitted that the petitioner never attended her office regularly during her tenure. Learned counsel also submitted that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, as the petitioner herself had fixed the date of the meeting for special meeting of ‘no confidence motion’. The Executive Officer accordingly gave notice about the date of ‘no confidence motion’. The petitioner instead of holding the meeting has filed the present writ application to engage herself in horse trading.

6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that the Mukhiya has nothing to do with the affairs of Panchayat Samiti and the certificates granted by them in favour of the petitioner can not restrain the members to tender their requisition with specific charges levelled against her. The certificates of Mukhiya has of no relevance.

7. The official records which are in possession of State respondent are proof of the fact that the requisition was made by the majority of member of Gram Panchayat Samiti on the basis of charges. He further submitted that in the above facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is devoid of merit is fit to be dismissed

8. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of parties, the pleadings made in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State, as well as, the private respondents nos.6-10, it appears following allegations have been made against the petitioner in the requisition for holding special meeting of ‘No Confidence Motion’:—

^^1- iapk;r lfefr dk cSBd izR;sd nks ekg ij djuk gS ysfdu vkids }kjk nk