... Petitioner/s. Versus

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No of 2013 ====================================================== Mira Devi wife of Sri Dinesh Rai, resident of village and P.O. Nikaspur, P.S. Tajpur, District - Samastipur, presently Pramukh of Block Panchayat Samiti, Morwa, District - Samastipur Versus Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secreary, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Samastipur, District - Samastipur 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Samastipur, District - Samastipur 6. The Block Development Officer-Cum-Executive Officer, Block Panchayat Samiti, Morwa, District - Samastipur 7. Smt. Ranjan Devi wife of Sri Dharamvir Rai, the member of Block 8. Munni Devi wife of Sri Girmal Thakur, the member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Morwa, P.O. and P.S. Morwa, District - Samastipur 9. Smt. Smita Sharma wife of Sri Awadhesh Sharma, the member of Block 10. Smt. Sushila Devi wife of Sri Ashok Mahto, the member of Block 11. Smt. Rekha Devi wife of Sri Ram Padarath Sahani, the member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Morwa, P.O. and P.S. Morwa, District - Samastipur 12. Sri Rajiv Chaudhary Son of Sri Arjun Chaudhary, the member of Block 13. Smt. Dharamshila Devi wife of Sri Kanhai Sah, the member of Block 14. Smt. Rani Devi wife of Sri Phulan Singh, the member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Morwa, P.O. And P.S. Morwa, District - Samastipur 15. Smt. Usha Devi wife of Sri Balmiki Prasad, the member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Morwa, P.O. And P.S. Morwa, District - Samastipur 16. Sri Mahesh Thakur Son of Sri Samindra Thakur, the member of Block 17. Sri Jalim Paswan son of Late Lakhan Dangar Paswan, the member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Morwa, P.O. and P.S. Morwa, District - Samastipur 18. Sri Ajay Rai son of Sri Ram Chandra Rai, the member of Block 19. Smt. Mira Dei wife of Sri Chandeshwar Sah, the member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Morwa, P.O. And P.S. Morwa, District - Samastipur 20. Smt. Kiran Devi Sri Arun Ram, the member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Morwa, P.O. and P.S. Morwa, District - Samastipur 21. Smt. Nila Devi wife of Sri Krishna Kumar Sah, the member of Block 22. Smt. Sumitra Devi Late Ram Bilash Mahto, the member of Block 23. Sri Arbind Prasad Rai son of Sri Ramashray Rai, the member of Block

2 Patna High Court CWJC No of 2013 (2) dt Sri Jai Narayan Rai son of Sri Ramashray Rai, the member of Block 25. Sri Raj Kumar Sharma Son of Late Ram Sagar Thakur, the member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Morwa, P.O. and P.S. Morwa, District - Samastipur 26. Sri Shashi Singh son of Sri Chandradip Rai, the member of Block 27. Smt. Rekha Devi wife of Sri Manohar Prasad Singh, the member of Block Panchayat Samiti, Morwa, P.O. and P.S. Morwa, District - Samastipur 28. Smt. Bandana Devi wife of Sri Sanjay Rai, the member of Block 29. Sri Santosh Kumar Son of Sri Rajeshwar Thakur, the member of Block Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kundan Bhadur Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER Issue notice to respondent nos. 6 to 29 under ordinary process as well as registered cover with A/D in the admission matter as well as in the interlocutory application for which requisites be filed within one week, failing which this application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. The notice under ordinary process will be served in the office of the Executive Officer cum- Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Morwa, District-Samastipur and who in turn will effect service on the respondent nos. 7 to 29 and file an affidavit to that effect. Since one of the issue raised by Mr. S.B.K. Manglam appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the notice convening

3 Patna High Court CWJC No of 2013 (2) dt special meeting is in contravention of Section 44(3)(v) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) inasmuch as it does not contain the allegations / reasons, let a counter affidavit be filed by the Block Development Officer explaining the circumstances and how he is discharging duties with such utter ignorance of law. Put up after service of notice / appearance of the private respondents / receipt of report from the Block Development Officer whichever is earlier in Admission-II within top 25 cases. This Court is noticing that either due to inadvertence or ignorance of law or with deliberate intention that the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samitis who happen to be the Block Development Officer of the Block concerned are issuing notice under Section 44(3)(i) of the Act without complying with the provisions of Section 44(3) (v) of the Act which mandates that such notice should contain reasons / allegations forming foundation for the no confidence motion and as a consequence the motion passed thereon becomes illegal. The fault is of the Executive Officer and the beneficiary becomes the incumbent Mukhiya / Up Mukhiya as the case may be with the requisitionists who have no role to play in the issuance of notice, becoming the sufferers. This issue requires to be deliberated at the level of the

4 Patna High Court CWJC No of 2013 (2) dt Principal Secretary Panchayati Raj Department in as much, the Act having come into force in 2006, a passage of 8 years is yet insufficient for the Executive Officer / B.D.O. to understand the legal requirement and besides these kind of litigations are an unnecessary burden on the High Court. The law in this regard was settled by this Court in the case of Meena Yadav vs. State reported in 2010(2) PLJR 389 and yet this Court is flooded with litigations of present nature. This requires attention of the Principal Secretary for appropriate measures at his level for such kind of unwarranted litigations is an obstacle to the states litigation policy to curb litigation. Let a counter affidavit be filed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department as to why appropriate steps be not taken by him to divest such of the Executive Officers cum Block Development Officers who have no appreciation of law and are unworthy of discharging duties of an Executive Officer under the Panchayat Act. Let a copy of this order be communicated by FAX to the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J) U

5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No of 2014 ====================================================== Upendra Pd. Singh son of Late Radha Raman Mahto, resident of village- Malpur, P.S. Khodawandpur, District-Begusarai Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna-1 2. The State Election Commission through its Chief Election Commissioner, Bihar 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger 4. The District Magistrate, Begusarai 5. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Begusarai 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Manjhaul, Begusarai 7. The Block Development Officer cum Executive Officer, Khodawandpur, Begusarai 8. Vijay Kumar, Udyog Prasar Padadhikari, Khodawandpur, Begusarai 9. Mithilesh Kumar Mishra son of late Dukhaharan Mishra, resident of village-bidulia, Post Office-Meghaul, P.S. Khodawandpur, District- Begusarai, member of Panchayat Samiti, Khodawandpur, territorial constituency no. 11 in the district of Begusarai 10. Jawed Ali son of Md. Noor Bhagalu, resident of village- Nullahpur, P.S. Khodawandpur, District-Begusarai, Member of Panchayat Samiti, Khodawandpur, Territorial Constituency No. 1 in the district of Begusarai 11. Ramchandra Das son of Deo Narayan Das, resident of village-tara Bariyarpur, P.S. Khodawandpur, District-Begusarai, member of Panchayat Samiti, Khodawandpur, Territorial Constituency No. 3 in the district of Begusarai 12. Kumar Munni Devi wife of Ram Babu Yadav, resident of village- Chalaki, P.S. Khodawandpur, District-Begusarai, Member of Panchayat Samiti, Khodawandpur, Territorial Constituency No. 3 in the District of Begusarai 13. Afsana Khatoon wife of Md. Manjur Alam, resident of village-jogipur, P.S. Khodawandpur, District-Begusarai, Member of Panchayat Samiti, Khodawandpur, Territorial Constituency No. 4 in the District of Begusarai 14. Bhawani Devi wife of Naresh Ram, resident of village-tetrahi, P.S. Khodawandpur, District-Begusarai, Member of Panchayat Samiti, Khodawandpur, Territorial Constituency No. 5 in the district of Begusarai 15. Vimala Devi wife of Bhola Das, resident of village-khodawandpur, P.S. Khodawandpur, District Begusarai, Member of Panchayat Samiti, Khodawandpur, Territorial Constituency No. 9 in the district of Begusarai 16. Sanju Devi wife of Dinesh Mahto, resident of village-tara P.S. Khodawandpur, District Begusarai, Member of Panchayat Samiti, Khodawandpur, Territorial Constituency No. 7 in the district of Begusarai 17. Ashwini Prasad Singh son of Late Deo Datt Prasad Singh, resident of

6 Patna High Court CWJC No of 2014 (2) dt village-meghaul, P.S. Khodawandpur, District Begusarai, Member of Panchayat Samiti, Khodawandpur, Territorial Constituency No. 11 in the district of Begusarai Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar GP-23 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER Reg: I.A. No of 2014 This interlocutory application was filed praying for stay of the election fixed on Since the election has already taken place hence the prayer made in this application has been rendered infructuous and the interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. Reg: CWJC No of 2014 with I.A. No of 2014 Issue notice to respondent nos.6, 7 to 17 in the writ petition as well as in the interlocutory application for which requisites under ordinary process as well as registered cover with A/D be filed by , failing which this application shall stand rejected without further reference to the Bench. The notice under ordinary process would be served in the office of the Executive Officer cum Block Development Officer, Khodawandpur, District-Begusarai, the respondent no. 7 who in turn shall effect service on respondent nos. 8 to 17 and file an affidavit to that effect.

7 Patna High Court CWJC No of 2014 (2) dt The petitioner has questioned the no confidence motion passed on placed at Annexure-6 inter alia on grounds that the notice issued by the Executive Officer cum Block Development Officer, Khodawandpur dated intimating the date of special meeting is in contravention of Section 44(3)(v) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 inasmuch as it contains no reasons nor the allegations have been mentioned thereunder as mandated under the Act. He thus submits that on this sole account not only the no confidence motion is rendered illegal, even the election of the new Pramukh pursuant to the election held on , is a perpetuation of illegality. Let a show cause be filed by the Block Development Officer as regarding his ignorance of law in following the statutory provisions while circulating a notice under Section 44(3)(1) of the Act intimating the Panchayat Samiti members about the date of special meeting which in terms of Section 44(3)(v) of the Act should contain the allegations / reasons and which are missing in the present case. Let a counter affidavit also be filed on behalf of the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department as to the steps being taken by the Department for removal of such of the Block Development Officers who are discharging duties of Executive

8 Patna High Court CWJC No of 2014 (2) dt Officers under the Panchayat Raj Act without having understanding of law and are committing such mistake either due to ignorance of law or with a view to favour a particular class. Put up after service of notice / appearance of the respondents / receipt of report whichever is earlier in Admission-II within top 10 cases. (Jyoti Saran, J) S.Sb/- U

9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No of 2009 ***** 1. Balchand Rajbansi, Son of Shyam Rajbanshi, resident of village- Kharondh. 2. Md. Momin, son of Md. Mokim, resident of village- Parhadawar. 3. Bramhadeo Prasad, son of Somar Prasad, resident of village- Kosambha. 4. Ajmeri Khatoon, wife of Meraj Ahmad, resident of village- Pratappur. 5. Lalo Prasad Tanti, son of Late Badri Tanti, resident of village- Pirauta. 6. Sushma Devi, wife of Ranjan Kumar, resident of village- Kushahan. 7. Aruna Devi, wife of Mahendra Pd. Singh, resident of village- Amokhari. 8. Dilip Kumar, son of Chandrika Pd. Singh, resident of village- Amhadi. 9. Kamla Devi, wife of Bramhadeo Rajbanshi, resident of village- Bhelwatanr. 10. Kanti Devei, wife of Suresh Prasad, resident of village- Surjudih. 11. Paria Devi, wife of Ram Chandra Rajbanshi, resident of village- Pachamba. 12. Ram Chandra Rajbansi, son of Munna Rajbansi, resident of village- Chowgaon. 13. Sarita Devi, wife of Santosh Kumar, resident of village- Kasiyadih. 14. Gayatri Devi, wife of Ram Briksha Manjhi, resident of Kripakurha. 15. Saraswati Devi, wife of Bagesh Rajbansi, resident of village- Akona. 16. Arjun Sao, son of Baldeo Sao, resident of village- Chamotha.. Petitioner nos. 1 to 16, all of P.S. Sirdala, District-Nawadah... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Nawadah. 4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Nawadah. 5. The Executive officer-cum-block Development Officer, Sirdalla, District-Nawadah. 6. The State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna through the Secretary, State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna. 7. Urmila Devi, wife of Preman Prem Chand Choudhary, resident of village- P.O. and P.S. Sirdala, District-Nawadah. 8. Urmila Devi, wife of Jitendra Choudhary, resident of village- Bardaha, P.S. Sirdala, District-Nawadah. 9. Rajendra Ram, son of Rameshwar Ram, resident of village- Kharondh, P.S. Sirdala, District-Nawadah. 10. Nilu Devi, wife of Manoj Singh, resident of village- Bargaon, P.S. Sirdala, District- Nawadah. 11. Ram Balak Singh, son of Lachcho Singh resident of village- Kalaunda, P.S. Sirdala, District-Nawadah... Respondents For the petitioners : Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Commission : Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ambrish Kr. Jha, Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate-IV Petitioners are before this High Court seeking a direction

10 - 2 - upon the respondent authorities to convene a special meeting for debating a no confidence motion, based on the requisition contained in Annexure- 1. They are aggrieved by the communication dated contained in Annexure-2 issued by the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Nawada, where he has refused to convene the meeting on the ground that in terms of Section 44(3) of Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 2006, the two years period of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh has not lapsed since they have been put in place. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that this kind of rejection of their no confidence motion is misplaced because the authorities have neither the power nor the correct understanding of law on this issue. He submits that if earlier no confidence motion based on which the present Pramukh was elected has been carried out more than a year ago then a second no confidence motion can be put in motion. The provisions relating to removal of Pramukh or Up- Pramukh is contained in Section 44 of the Act. In this regard some of the provisions need to be reproduced for ready reference and proper interpretation. Section 44(3) (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) are relevant and are reproduced hereinbelow: (3) (i) A Pramukh/Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of the total number of elected members of the Panchayat Samiti at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. The requisition for such a special meeting shall be presented to the Pramukh in writing with a copy to the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, by not less than one third of the total number of members elected directly from the territorial constituencies of the Panchayat Samiti.

11 - 3 - The Executive Officer shall immediately bring the requisition to the notice of the Pramukh. The Pramukh shall convene such meeting on a date falling within 15 days of such requisition. If the Pramukh fails to call the special meeting, the Up-Pramukh or one third of the total number of directly elected members may fix a date for such meeting and require the Executive Officer to give notice to the members and to take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting. The Executive Officer shall necessarily issue such notice in time and convene the meeting. No such meeting shall be postponed once the notice for the same has been issued. No quorum shall be required for the special meeting convened to discuss no confidence motion. (ii) No confidence motion shall not be moved against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh within the first two year period of their tenure. (iii) If the motion of no confidence brought against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh or both is once rejected, no fresh motion of no confidence against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh or both, as the case may be shall be brought before the Panchayat Samiti within a period of one year from the date of such rejection of the motion. (iv) No confidence motion against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh or both, as the case may be, shall not be brought during the last six months of the term of the No confidence motion shall not be moved against the Pramukh or the Up-Pramukh as mentioned in section 39(1) of this Act. A reading of the provision of Section 44(3) (ii) would indicate that a no confidence motion cannot be moved against a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh within the first two years period of their (emphasis mine) tenure. A plain reading of such a provision would mean that whenever a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh is elected to the post in question then for the first two years of their being in office no no confidence motion can be brought against them. Contention of the petitioners is that clause (ii) of Section

12 - 4-44(3) only relates to the first election of the first Pramukh or Up-Pramukh thereafter it is free for all and every year a no confidence motion can be brought against the elected persons. The Court has great reservation in giving an interpretation to such a submission because that would be doing violations to the provisions as well as the words which are emphatic in nature in the provisions mentioned above. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Nawada has done no wrong in not entertaining the no confidence motion because admittedly the last Pramukh was elected on when the first Pramukh was removed in a vote of no confidence. The present requisition has come on , which is in breach of Section 44(3)(ii). The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)

13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No of 2008 SITA DEVI, wife of Manikant Yadav, resident of village- Laxminia, P.O. Badia, P.S.- Paura Gogri, District- Khagaria.. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. District Magistrate, Khagaria 3. S.D.O., Gogri, District Khagaria 4. The Executive Officer-cum-Development Officer, Gogri Block, District- Khagaria 5. Binay Kumar singh, son of Late Kamleshwari Singh, Village- Rajdham,Post Maheshkhunt, P.S. Mahesh Khunt, Gogri, Distt.- Khagaria 6. Punam Verma, wife of Rajkishor Singh, Village Pasraha, P.O. Pasraha, P.S.Pasraha, Distt. Khagaria, Panchayat Samiti member No Anil Sharma, s/o Ramdhari Sharma, Vill.- Aunta, P.O.- Jamalpur, P.S.Gogri, Distt. Khagaria, Panchayat Samiti member No Dinesh Kumar Singh, son of not known, Vill.- Dharampur Temha, P.O Banni, P.S. Mahes Khunt, District- Khagaria, Panchayat Samiti member No Kiran Devi, w/o Ashok Paswan, Vill.- Navtolia, Banni, P.O. Banni, P.S. Mahesh Khunt, District- Khagaria, Panchayat Samiti membership No Naresh Singh, s/0 Vishundev Singh, Vill.- Sirjua, P.O.- Chaidha Banni, P.S. Mahesh Khunt, Distt.- Khagaria, Panchayat Samiti membership no Ranjeet Kumar, s/0 Brahamdev Singh, Vill.- Dinachakla, P.O.- Sher, Chakla, P.S. Gogri, Distt. Khagaria, P.S.M. No Indu Devi, W/o Ajeet Singh, vill.- Itihari, P.O. Itihari, P.S. Gogri, Distt. Khagaria, PSM No Ram Prakash Singh, S/o Om Prakash Singh, Vill.- Maheshkhunt, P.O. Maheshkhunt, P.S. Maheshkhunt, Distt.- Khagaria, PSM No Khurshida Khatun, W/o Samad Alam Vill.+ P.O. Muskipur, Jamalpur, P.S. Gogri, Distt. Khagaria, PSM No Shanti Devi W/o Birchandra Kumar, Vill. + P.O. Sondiha, P.S. Pasnaha, Distt. Khagaria, PSM No Binod Yadav, S/o Jageshwar Yadav, Vill.- Chandpur, P.O. Ratan, P.S. Gogri, Distt. Khagaria, PSM No Subodh Yadav, S/o Moti Yadav, Vill. Shergarh, P.O. Shergarh, P.S. Gogri, Distt. Khagaria, PSM No Rupam Mishra, W/o Bhagwan Mishra, Vill. + P.O. Mathura, P.S. Gogri, Distt. Khagaria, PSM No Tuna Devi, W/o Janardan Yadav, Vill.- Gauraiya Bathan, P.O. Jamalpur, P.S Gogri, Distt. Khagaria, PSM No Meera Devi W/o Madhav Singh, At + P.O. Piparpanti, P.S. Pasraha, Distt. Khagaria, PSM No. 24

14 2 21. Amrita Devi, w/0 Mukesh Sharma, At + P.O. Dewtha, P.S. Pasraha, Distt. Khagaria, PSM No Surya Narayan Paswan, s/0 Batoran Paswan, Vill. + P.O. Gogri, P.S. Gogri, Distt. Khagaria, PSM No. 11. Respondents For the petitioner:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ramjee Sharma, Advocate For Resp. No.6 :- M/S S.B.K.Mangalam & Rajeev Kumar, Advocates Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned J.C. to Government Pleader No. 17 and learned counsel for respondent no.6. The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated by which the special meeting for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner-pramukh was fixed on and further the decision taken at the said meeting wherein the resolution of no confidence motion was passed and also the communication dated issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Gogri by which the respondent no. 6 has been declared elected on the post of Pramukh of Gogri Panchayat Samiti. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises three points in support of the case of the petitioner. It is firstly submitted that the requisition for convening the special meeting was addressed not to the Pramukh as required under Section 44(3) (i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 but to the Executive Officercum-Block Development Officer. It is urged that the subsequent placing of the said requisition (Annexure-2) before the Pramukh

15 3 by the Executive Officer cannot cure the illegality as such a requisition has to be treated as not having been validly presented at all and thus no requisition in the eye of law. The second submission of the learned counsel is that the notice dated (Annexure-4) had fixed the date of the special meeting for considering no confidence motion on which again is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 46(4) of the Act which provides for seven clear days notice. Lastly, it is argued that the notice itself does not contain any reasons/charges which action is violative of the provisions of Section 44(3)(v) of the Act. So far as the issue of requisition is concerned, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 states on the basis of the counter affidavit filed on her behalf that subsequently after the first requisition was filed on before the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti but no action was taken by the petitioner then a fresh requisition addressed to the petitioner was presented before her on which she refused to accept and thereafter a copy of the said requisition was filed before the Executive Officer who had placed the said requisition before the petitioner on It is thus, submitted that the defect in the form and presentation of the requisition was cured by the subsequent requisition since, according to learned counsel for respondent no. 6, the rejection order of the requisition was passed

16 4 by the petitioner on the subsequent requisition. With regard to the issue of seven clear days notice, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 submits that when the special meeting for considering fresh no confidence motion had been requisitioned, the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong in fixing the date contrary to the provisions of the statute. With regard to last submission learned counsel submits that although the same were not contained in the notice, but the reasons/charges were duly indicated in the requisition. On a consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is right in contending that the requisition placed before her was the requisition addressed to the Executive Officer as appears from the initials, etc. contained in the margin of the said requisition which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. However, the issue which clinches the matter is that there has been violation of the mandatory provisions of seven clear days notice by the notice dated and for this reason alone the notice has to be declared illegal and the special meeting convened pursuant to the said notice and the decision taken in the said special meeting will also have to be considered as illegal and non est in the eye of law. That being the position, there being no vacancy on the post of Pramukh the election of respondent no. 6 subsequently on the said post is required to be quashed as being

17 5 contrary to law. On the issue of reasons/charges it is evident that as per the provisions of Section 44(3) (v) reasons/charges are to be mentioned in the notice which is sent out to the members and not merely in the requisition. So far as the contention regarding the person not being allowed to take advantage of his/her own wrong, the same has no application to the facts of the case since admittedly it is not the petitioner who had fixed the date of the special meeting. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed, the notice dated and the resolution in favour of no confidence motion passed in the special meeting held on are both quashed and so also the subsequent election of respondent no. 6 on the post of Pramukh is set aside. In view of the fact that the entire proceedings from the very inception have been declared illegal by this Court and quashed, it would be open to the members of the Panchayat Samiti to proceed afresh in accordance with law. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)