ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 06-03-2024 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. learned GP 11 for the State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for respondent nos.6 to

20.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the requisition which has been brought on record by way of Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4, though addressed in the name of petitioner, was never served to him any time before the Block Development Officer had communicated with respect to holding of special meeting of “No Confidence Motion” against him. He further submitted that power and function of Up-Pramukh is contained in Section 43 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). In respect of his contention, learned counsel submits that as per the provision of the sub-Section (a) of Section 43 of the Act, the Up-Pramukh presides over the meeting of panchayat samiti in absence of Pramukh. The Pramukh was never absent from his duty and there was no occasion at any point of time to preside over the meeting of the panchayat samiti by him. He admits that he has not made any statement to that respect and, as such, he finds it proper to assail the requisition, contained in Annexure R/1, undated, signed by altogether 15 members, which contains specific charge of misappropriation of distribution of fund and allocation on account of in Indira Awas Yojna and if the same is taken into account, the Pramukh, who was present on different dates of special meeting, can only be held responsible for such illegality. He again admits the fact that at no point of time, he being the Up-pramukh or any of the elected members of the panchayat samiti, had complained before the Lok Parhari or to the Additional Chief Secretary for taking action against the Pramukh in this regard. In these backgrounds, learned counsel submitted that the requisition is not sustainable though charges are alleged against him.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner cannot be granted relief on account of the fact that the entire procedure for calling of special meeting for “No Confidence Motion” against him is in accordance with law. The panchayat committee, consists of 21 members, out of which 15 members, i.e., more than 1/3rd members have made requisition vide letter dated 13.12.2023 to the Pramukh, Bodh Gaya, for calling of special meeting for “No Confidence Motion” against the petitioner, who had fixed the date on 13.01.2024 and accordingly it was communicated to the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Bodh Gaya to inform the elected members including the Up-Pramukh/the petitioner, informing the date of meeting of “No Confidence Motion” to be held on 13.01.2024. Aggrieved by the no confidence called against him, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court vide order dated 11.01.2024, had stayed the special meeting which was to be convened on 13.01.2024. Learned State counsel further submitted that considering Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit, it reveals that the specific charges are contained against the petitioner in the requisition. Learned counsel further submitted that it appears that the petitioner after having interpolated the first page of the notice, annexed to the Annexure P/1 to the writ petition by deliberately suppressing letter dated 13.12.2023, which was received in the office of Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer, contained in Annexure R/1 has misled the Court. The charges are clear and on these backgrounds, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not only defeated the mandate of the people, but at the same time he has been engaged in criminal act by forging the document to obtain order from this Court.

4. Heard the parties.

5. It has been alleged in the requisition dated

30.12.2008 (Annexure P/1) that the petitioner has committed gross irreg