Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PURNENDU SINGH, J.
CWJC No.1592 of 2024
(21.2.2024)
Bijal Paswan ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 – Section 44 – Bihar Panchayat Raj Institution (Conduct of Business) Rules, 2015 – Rules 15, 16, 17 and 22(2) – Removal from post of Pramukh – Convening of special meeting for No Confidence Motion – Rule making power conferred upon by Parent Act cannot travel beyond mandate of Parent Act – Provision of Rules 15 and 22 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Institutions (Conduct of Business) Rules, 2015 in no manner is in consistent with provisions of Section 44 of Act, 2006 – Petitioner has not been able to bring on record, as to whether, he had made any complaint before Presiding Officer or any of authority including State Election Commission during meeting or immediately after meeting or on subsequent day – In absence of any evidence, Court don't find any infirmity in recording of proceeding in minutes by Presiding Officer – Once petitioner who is Pramukh, had participated in meeting, he cannot turn around and take a summersault to either assail charges contained in requisition or that he was not given any opportunity and there is any violation of principles of natural justice in conduct of meeting – Writ petition consigned to records. (Paras 18, 20, 28, 30 and 31)
Precedent – In situations where a decision/judgment has been passed in ignorance of an earlier decision of coordinate bench, Judgment rendered earlier would continue to hold force and subsequent Judgments would become per incuriam – A coordinate bench or co-equal Bench cannot give a decision contrary to or inconsistent with law laid down by coordinate Bench – Precedent law must be followed by all and deviation from it should only be on a procedure known to law – Judicial discipline demands that judicial propriety and judicial decorum must be followed in all circumstances – Coordinate Bench should not embark upon exercise of inquiring about correctness of law laid down by another coordinate Bench – In not following settled law, Courts create disharmony and disturb principle of Stare Decisis – Instances can be found where Courts generally consider most recent judgment on the point to be correctly laying the law – However, such an approach is an erroneous approach – It is only ratio decidendi that has precedential value. (Paras 23, 25, 26 and 27)
Purnendu Singh, J. – Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Om Prakash, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.9 and also learned Government Advocate No.2 appearing for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) in paragraph no. 1 of the writ petition; –
“That the petitioner prays for quashing the Requisition dated 02.012024 submitted directly to the executive officer on the ground that the minimum 1/3rd Panchayat Samiti Members never presented the requisition to the Pramukh as mandated under Section 44(3)(1) rendering all subsequent decision as nullity. No response of the executive officer on the suspicious requisition amounted to connivance and the petitioner further prays to hold and declare the letter NO. 01 dated 03.01.2024 passed by the executive Officer as illegal and collusive being breach of mandatory procedure and finally the petitioner seeks further declaration to hold and declare the special meeting dated 18.01.2024 as illegal on the ground that no deliberation took place on that day and that the special meeting was intended to create a platform to vote out the Pramukh. The petitioner further prays for a direction to the Panchayati Raj Department as also Executive officer to keep the result of the no confidence motion dated 18.01.2024 in abeyance, not declaring the post to be vacant and status-quo as existing on the date of requisition may be directed to the maintained till the further order of the Hon’ble Court.”
BRIEF FACTS
3. The brief facts, as enumerated in the writ petition, for consideration of this Court are that the petitioner was declared elected as Pramukh and a certificate was granted to him for the post of the Prakhand Pramukh, Kusheshwar Asthan Purbi, Darbhanga on 27.12.2021. On 02.01.2024, one Panchayat Samiti Member, namely, Anjani Bharti submitted a requisition containing charges for holding special meeting of “No Confidence Motion”, against the petitioner and the Up- Pramukh. Since the said requisition was not signed by 1/3rd of the Panchayat Samiti Members, the petitioner had refused to accept the said requisition. A news was published in Dainik Bhaskar dated 03.01.2024 regarding holding of “Special meeting of No Confidence Motion” against the Pramukh & Up- Pramukh of the concerned Prakhand. The petitioner alleges that the Executive Officer, in connivance with the Samiti members had accepted the requisition and had issued a letter No.1 dated 03.01.2024, informing the petitioner, being Pramukh, to fix a date for special meeting for “No Confidence Motion” against the Pramukh and the Up- Pramukh. The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged illegal action of the Executive Officer, who, in connivance with the elected members of the Panchayat has managed to topple him from the post of Pramukh by allegedly fixing the date for meeting for deliberation on “No confidence” against the petitioner and the Up- Pramukh on 18.01.2024 at 11.30 A.M. vide letter No. 05 dated 10.01.2024. The voting took place against the Pramukh and the Up-Pramukh on 18.01.2024 and the petitioner could not gain the confidence of the elected members present in the meeting.
SUBMISSION OF COUNSEL
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner emphasises that he confines his prayer only with regard to declare special meeting dated 18.01.2023 as illegal for the reason that no deliberation had taken place in the meeting which deprived the petitioner to defend himself. He submitted that the special meeting was intended to create a platform to vote out the Pramukh.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in above background submitted that in absence of any deliberation on the charges on the date of meeting fixed i.e. 18.01.2024 in the manner prescribed under Sections 44(3)(IV)(V) & (VI) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (For brevity the ‘Act’) the entire process can be held to be undemocratic and vitiated in the eye of law.
The court affirmed that a second No Confidence Motion is permissible if the first requisition did not lead to a valid meeting or vote, as per the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
The court upheld the validity of the no confidence motion requisition under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, confirming the necessity for clear allegations and the petitioner's failure to disclose key fa....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice for the no confidence motion was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, and therefore d....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
