K. VINOD CHANDRAN, HARISH KUMAR
Dhirendra Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ. – The appellants before this Court are members of the Darbhanga Zila Parishad, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appellants contend that the Adhyaksha and Up-adhyaksha of the Zila Parishad were removed by reason of a ‘No Confidence Motion’ after which the writ petition was filed. In the writ petition, the learned single Judge found that ‘No Confidence Motion’ having been moved within two years, the meeting could not have been convened by the Adhyaksha, since the provisions of Section 70 (4) (ii) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) prohibited such a motion during the first two year period of the tenure; of the Council.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. S. B. K. Mangalam submits that in fact the two year period had passed by one day and the meeting scheduled had gone ahead with 26 out of the 47 members voting in favour of the ‘No Confidence Motion’.
3. Mr. Y V Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 51 and 52 would submit that the appellants do not have locus standi, since they are not the requisionists. It is also submitted that the rigor insofar as Section 70 (4) (ii) of
No-confidence motions against the Up-Pramukh can be validly convened even without delegation by the Adhyaksh, and reasons must be specified in notices as per the Act.
Mandatory compliance with statutory deadlines in No Confidence Motion procedures is essential for legality.
The omission of authorities to conduct a no confidence vote against the elected leaders contravenes the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, emphasizing that voting is mandatory and quorum is not required.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.