1. Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned Senior counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 and 17, 18 and 20, Mr. Kundan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 13 and 19, Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned Standing Counsel No. 3 for the State and Mr. Ravi Ranjan and Mr. Girish Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs;

“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing of the letter no. 05 dated 02.01.2024 issued under the signature of the Block Development Officer, Chhaurahi, Begusarai whereby the petitioner being the Prakhand Pramukh, Chhaurahi has been requested to take necessary steps in view of the application enclosed along with the aforesaid letter signed by the Ex- Pramukh namely Manoj Kumar and other nine members of the Panchayat Samiti for convening special meeting for considering the proposal of no confidence against the petitioner and Up-Pramukh of the concerned Panchayat for their unsatisfactory performance.

(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing of the requisition /application purportedly signed by the Ex- Pramukh namely Manoj Kumar and other nine Panchayat Samiti members of Block- Chhaurahi, Begusarai whereby they have requested the petitioner being Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti to convene a meeting for proposal of no confidence motion against him as well as the Up-Pramukh. Though the aforesaid requisition is absolutely inconsistent to the mandate of concern statutory provision being devoid of specific reasons.

(iii) For holding that the requisition/application dated 01.01.2024 to convene a meeting to consider the proposal of no confidence motion against the petitioner as well as the Up-Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti is absolutely in violation of Section 44 of the Panchayati Raj Act (hereinafter refer as Act only) and as such is illegal and unsustainable.

(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was elected as a Pramukh from Sawant Gram Panchayat, Prakhand-Chhaurahi, District- Begusarai and after elected as Pramukh, the petitioner started discharging his duties as Pramukh in accordance with the mandate of law as well as statutory provisions. Some of the members of Panchayat Samiti having vested interest are hell bent to remove the petitioner from the post of Pramukh and accordingly, they conspired and sent a requisition dated 01.01.2024 purportedly signed by the members of Panchayat Samiti on vague and uncertain allegation in utter violation of Section 44 of Panchayat Raj Act. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the private respondents and others submitted a vague application on 01.01.2024 requiring for convening a meeting of Panchayat Samiti but the requisition/application does not contain the charges or the allegation in explicit, unambiguous and clear terms. A letter bearing No. 05 dated 02.01.2024 was issued under the signature of the Block Development officer, Chhaurahi, Begusarai whereby the Respondent No. 7 issued a notice requiring for convening a meeting is in violation of the provision of Section 44 of the Act. The notice does not contain the charges or the allegation in explicit, unambiguous and clear terms, the same shall be bad, illegal because the petitioner who faces no confidence motion could not reply the charges properly and vagueness of charges shall vitiate the notice as well as the resolution taken pursuant in the meeting.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 44 of the Act deals with no confidence motion, Sub- Section (3)(iv) of Section 44 of the Act deals with as follows: “Such reasons/charges, on the basis of which no confidence motion has to be moved against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh, shall be clearly mentioned in the notice of the meeting so called for consideration of the no confidence motion.” From perusal of the impugned requisition clearly manifest that the same is not the case and no such mentioning can be found in terms of the staturoty provision and the impugned requisition consists of six vague reasons namely as :

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

5. However, none of the aforesaid reasons and grounds disclosed any cogent and valid reasons and in particular in respect of the significant date, time and nature enabling the petitioner to address and advance explanation in respect of the allegations and charges levelled against him.

6. The Executive Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Chhaurahi, Begusarai (Respondent No. 7) has also with inclusion of the vested interested person had acted arbitrarily with intention to remove the petitioner from the post of Pramukh and even not called a meeting pursuant to the application dated 01.01.2024 of the petitioner. The question as to what should be contained in notice requiring for convening a meeting the Hon’ble High Court held that provision of Section 44 of the Act 2006.

7. Learned Senior counsel for the petition relied upon a judgment in the case of Meena Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 389, referring paragraph nos. 6, 7, 11 and 12, which are quoted hereinbelow:

“6. On behalf of petitioners it was further submitted that subsequent judgments by learned Single Judges in the case of Bindu Devi V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 2005 (4) PLJR 112 and in the case of Nirmala Singh V/s State of Bihar, reported in 2006(1) PLJR 129 held somewhat similar but milder provisions in the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 to be directory and do not lay down the correct law as they are per-incurium of the earlier judgments of this Court in the case of Chandeshwar Prasad (supra) and Sindhu Devi (supra).

7. In the case of Chandeshwar Prasad the learned Single Judge, in the context of 1993 Act noticed that while sending a notice for special meeting, the motion or proposition mentioned in the written request of the members is also required to be mentioned in the notice. Thereafter, it was indicated in paragraph-10 that if there is any substantial breach of the provisions in Section 44(3) of that Act, then the decision taken in the special meeting will be vitiated. It was thereafter noticed that in fact the concerned respondents of that case had not annexed copy of the request mentioning the proposition for calling the special meeting nor could they show that any such request was made to the Pramukh or Up- Pramukh. Even the notice/request addressed to the Executive Officer was also not annexed. The relevant documents were not annexed in spite of averment on behalf of petitioners of that case that the required notice for holding a special meeting was never served on the Pramukh or Up- Pramukh. Even the motion or proposition mentioned in the written request of the members which was required to be stated in the notice had not been so stated. As a cumulative effect of such facts the court held that there was no compliance of the requirements of calling of special meeting as provided under Sections 44(3) and (4) of the Act of 1993. Clearly, in that case no law was laid down that non-mentioning of the allegations/charges furnished by the requisitionists in the notice issued by the concerned officers will, ipso facto, invalidate the special meeting and also the motion of no confidence carried out by majority of members.

11. The discussion of the aforesaid precedents clearly reveals that although in the 1993 Act the provisions were milder and did not explicitly require, as provided in the 2006 Act, to clearly mention the reasons/charges in the notice, still the Division Bench in the case of Sindhu Devi (supra) gave reasons and came to a conclusion that mere notice without specifying allegations and calling motion of 'no confidence is void at the threshold. This finding was derived by the Division Bench in the context of 1993 Act by highlighting that the law enjoins that the notice will indicate the object for the meeting proposed as mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 44 and by referring to the true meaning of Democracy that it should not permit a brute majority to carry out motion of no confidence without recording or listing the allegations in the notice.

12. The subsequent Act of 2006 whose relevant provisions have been extracted earlier, has now cast an explicit obligation upon the Authority issuing the notice of meeting, be it the Pramukh or the Executive Officer to mention the reasons/charges in the notice. The purpose of this provision is not confined to giving notice to the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh of the meeting for a ‘no confidence motion’ alongwith reasons/charges so as to comply with requirements of natural justice, rather the purpose is clearly a much larger one, to subserve the basic ideology and purpose of Democracy which require free flow of relevant facts to all the members of a democratically elected body if those members are to have any meaningful discussions or deliberations over the concerned issues. The right of the members to have minimum fifteen days of notice alongwith reasons/charges so that they may come ready to participate meaningfully in the meeting relating to a 'no confidence motion’ has an important value which cannot be denied either by the Pramukh or the Executive Officer who are obliged to give notice of such meeting once a valid requisition is made by the required number of elected members. This provision requiring mentioning of reasons/charges in the notice of the meeting called to consider a no confidence motion serves the twin purpose of promoting informed debate amongst the members and enabling the office bearer against whom the motion is directed to defend himself against the alleged charges. The Legislature has incorporated such a provision in the Act when it was not there in such clear terms in the earlier Act of 1993, with a purpose which must be given full meaning and play.”

8. From perusal of the impugned requisition, it appears that the impugned requisition clearly manifests that the same is not the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the same is not in terms of the statutory provisions as prescribed under Section 44 of the Act. The Respondent No. 7 has also inclusion with the vested interested person and acted arbitrarily with intention to remove the petitioner from the post of Pramukh and he is not required to call a meeting pursuant to the application/letter dated 01.01.2024. The notice/requisition for holding special meeting does not contain definite, unambiguous, certain and explicit charges in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench Judgment in the case of Sindhu Devi Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2002) 1 PLJR 281.

9. Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned Senior counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 20 submits that the petitioner got selected as a member of Panchayat Samiti from Sawant Gram Panchayat, Prakhand Chhaurahi, District- Begusarai. The Respondent Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 20 also was elected as a Panchayat Samiti Members on 26.11.2021 along with the petitioner. On 29.12.2021 the petitioner got elected as Pramukh of Prakhand Chhaurahi District- Begusarai. The Respondent Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 20 have filed a requisition for convening special meeting of Panchayat Samiti for the discussion of ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of Chhaurahi Prakhand, Begusaqrai under Section 44(3)(i) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. Pursuant to the requisition of the aforesaid respondents, letter no. 05 dated 02.01.2024 issued under the signature of Respondent No. 7 for convening special meeting for no confidence motion with the application of allegation against the petitioner. The requisition of special meeting was received by the petitioner on 05.01.2024 and the Respondent No. 7 has presented the record before the petitioner on 06.01.2024 and the petitioner has fixed the date for special meeting on 13.01.2024 as per his office notice dated 06.01.2024. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 08.01.2024 for quashing of the letter no. 5 dated 02.01.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 7 and also for quashing of the requisition/application signed by the Nine members of the Panchayat Samiti of Block Chhaurahi, Begusarai. In fact the petitioner has not moved before the Hon’ble High Court with clean hand and he has suppressed the material fact that the petitioner had himself fixed the meeting on 06.01.2024 for 13.01.2024 but he has not stated anywhere in the present writ petition that he has fixed the meeting and thereafter the petitioner had filed I.A. No. 01 of 2024 on 12.01.2024 and even in the I.A. petition the petitioner suppressed the material fact that he had himself fixed the meeting on 06.01.2024 itself for 13.01.2024. The Hon’ble Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 directed the District Magistrate (Respondent No. 4) to conduct an enquiry with regard to the requisition made for calling of special meeting. The District Magistrate (Respondent No. 4) in compliance of the order dated 22.04.2024 by way of supplementary counter affidavit has affirmed that the requisition dated 01.01.2024 submitted to the petitioner and on the same requisition the process for conducting special meeting was initiated and on the same date the special meeting was fixed on 13.01.2024 by the Pramukh (petitioner). From perusal of the report of the District Magistrate (Respondent No. 4) dated 25.04.2024 and requisition dated 01.01.2024, there was no irregularity while submitting the requisition and the said requisition was submitted under Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2006). It is stipulated in the abovementioned provision that the requisition for special meeting for the discussion of ‘no confidence motion’ shall be presented to the Pramukh in writing with a copy of the B.D.O.-cum-Executive Officer (Respondent No. 7). In accordance with the Section 44(3)(i) of the Act, 2006 the Respondent Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 20 have presented the said requisition and on the same requisition the Respondent No. 7 initiated the proceeding to call the special meeting as the same is clearly evident from the stand taken by the State-respondent in their supplementary counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 20 further submits that from perusal of the records of the proceeding to call of the special meeting which was annexed by the State-respondents by way of counter affidavit is in consonance with Section 44(3) of the Act, 2006. The requisition was presented to the Pramukh on 01.01.2024 and on 02.01.2024 it has been noted by the Respondent No. 7 to endorse the said requisition to the Pramukh and Up- Pramukh, thereby the Respondent No. 7 vide letter no. 05 dated 02.01.2024 has requested to Pramukh to take necessary steps in view of the requisition and from perusal of the record it is evident that the records were presented before the Pramukh by the Respondent No. 7 on 05.01.2024 wherein the Pramukh (petitioner) himself has noted that within no time the date for special meeting shall be fixed again on 06.01.2024, the records were presented before the Pramukh (petitioner) wherein he himself fixed the date of 13.01.2024 for the special meeting for the discussion of no confidence motion. It is clearly evident that from the very beginning i.e. from the submission of the requisition on 01.01.2024 to the fixation of the date for the special meeting for the discussion of no confidence motion on 06.01.2024. There was no irregularity at any stage of the proceedings and the same is also affirmed by the report of the District Magistrate, Begusarai (Respondent No. 4).

10. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, & 20 humbly submitted that there are 14 elected members of the said Panchayat Samiti and out of them 09 (nine) members have submitted their requisition against the petitioner for his unsatisfactory works and conduct. Reasons/Charges are clearly mentioned in the requisition. The meeting was convened under Section 44(3)(i) of the Act, 2006 by the petitioner (Pramukh) himself and there is no illegality in letter of Respondent No. 7 dated 02.01.2024 in which he requested to take steps for convening the special meeting of Panchayat Samiti.

11. Learned Senior counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 20 relied upon a judgment in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114, referring paragraph nos. 1 and 2 which are quoted hereinbelow.

“1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.

2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”

12. Learned Senior counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 20 also relied upon a judgment in the case of Aarti Devi Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2010(4) PLJR 773, referring paragraph nos. 7 to 9 which are quoted hereinbelow:

“7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record it is quite apparent that admittedly the request was made by majority of the Nagar Panchayat in which specific allegations against the petitioners were enumerated. This is quite apparent from a copy of the requisition dated 22.7.2009 attached to this writ petition as Annexure-1. So far the consequent notice dated 30.7.2009 (Annexure-2) is concerned, no doubt it did not contain the allegation against the petitioners, but it is quite apparent from plain reading of the said notice that it was issued by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat at the instance of the petitioner no. 1 himself on the basis of the said requisition. Hence, he had full knowledge and information with respect to the allegations raised by majority of the members against the petitioners in the requisition.

8. It is also not in dispute that after the issuance of the said notice no objection was ever raised by the petitioners with regard to the notice or the procedure adopted in the no confidence motion nor the petitioners raised any protest in the no confidence motion in which both of them participated. Now after the process of the motion has been completed and concluded this writ petition has been filed relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Court in case of Sanjay Kumar (supra).

9. So far the order passed by a Division Bench of this court in case of Vinay Kumar "Pappu" (supra) is concerned, it has been specifically held by a Division Bench of this court as follows:

“26……….. Thus, it has to be treated in the realm of individual interest. As the Chief Councillor or the Deputy Chief Councillor faces the House for vote of no confidence motion and, if he has participated in the proceeding and acceded to the procedure, he/she can waive it. The doctrine of waiver, thus, gets squarely applied."

“34. The Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor accepted the circular and conducted the meeting. At that juncture, the authority could preside over the meeting. Nothing has come on record that the said authority interdicted during the meeting or did anything which could cause any kind of prejudice. The situation of casting vote did not arise. We are disposed to think that when a particular action has been taken and the said action is not bad, the concept of de facto doctrine would come into play on fours. The action would not be vitiated because the notification was afterwards declared invalid. Thus, apart from the principle of waiver, by applying the de facto doctrine, the vote of no confidence which has been mooted and passed by the house cannot be found fault with."

13. Learned Senior counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 20 also relied upon a judgment in the case of Shamshad Khatun Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2010 (1) PLJR 929.

14. Learned Senior counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 20 also relied upon a judgment of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 15.03.2024 passed in CWJC No. 4313 of 2024 (Bashid Ahmad Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) and also relied upon a judgment of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 15.04.2024 passed in LPA No. 359 of 2024 (Bashid Ahmad Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. ).

15. In view of the aforesaid, it transpired that petitioner himself fixed the date of Special meeting on 13.01.2024 as per his office notice dated 06.01.2024 and the present writ petition has been filed on 08.01.2024 and petitioner has suppressed the material fact before this Court that petitioner had himself fixed the meeting on 06.01.2024 for 13.01.2024. The petitioner has filed an I.A. No. 01 of 2024 on 12.01.2024 and even in the Interlocutory Application he has suppressed the aforesaid fact that he has fixed the meeting, which suggests that petitioner had not approached this Court with clean hand.

16. Apart from aforesaid, the respondent no. 4 also affirmed the aforesaid action of the petitioner in its report dated 25.04.2024. Affirmed that the requisition dated 01.01.2024 submitted to the petitioner and on the same requisition the process for conducting special meeting was initiated and the petitioner had himself fixed the date of Special meeting on 13.01.2024, and suppressed the material fact.

17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reason mentioned hereinabove, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order dated 02.01.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 7 and requisition dated 01.01.2024 for conducting the Special Meeting is valid requisition under the provision of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, so as to warrant any interference, hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.