Patna High Court
Mira Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 27 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9201 of 2024
======================================================
Mira Devi Wife of Amit Kumar Paswan Resident of village Chourahi, Post
Office and police station Chenari, District Rohtas at Sasaram. ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
3. The Block Development Officer -cum- Chief Executive Officer (Panchayati
Raj) Chenari, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. The Chief Election Officer, State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna.
5. Salamat Ansari Son of late Zahoor Ansari Resident of village Kenar Kala,
Police Station Chenari, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
6. Meena Bibi Wife of Imteyz Ali Resident of village Pithiyao, Police Station
Chenari, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
7. Smt. Gayatri Devi Wife of Guddu Sharma Resident of village Nuao Police
Station Chenari, Rohtas at Sasaram.
8. Yamuna Sah Son of Komal Sah Resident of village Tetri, Police Station
Chenari, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
9. Vikash Kumar Son of late Suryabansh Singh Resident of village Sariyam,
Police Station Chenari, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
10. Smt. Lakshmina Devi Wife of Bagi Ram Resident of Karma, Police Station
Chenari, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
11. Mukessh Kumar Ram Son of Ganga Ram Resident of village Palaundha,
Police Station Chenaril District Rohtas at Sasaram.
12. Smt. Shobha Kumari Wife of Mithilesh Kumar Resident of village Balhipur,
Police Station Chenari, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
13. Bihari Sah Son of late Bechu Sah Resident of village Sadokhar, Police
Station Chenari, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
14. Indravati Devi Wife of Sunil Mali Resident of village Telari, Police Station
Chenari, District Rohtas at Sasaram
15. Priyanka Devi Wife of Shivji Singh Resident of village Khurmabad, Police
Station Chenari, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
16. Suman Devi Resident of village Ubhao, Police Station Chenari, District
Rohtas at Sasaram.
17. Firdaus Beg Son of Kuddus Beg Resident of village Pevandi, Police Station
Chenari, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishana Chandra, Advocate
: Mr.Wasi Ahmad Khan, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Roy-1, S.C.-13
: Mr.Bijay Bhushan Prasad, A.C. to S.C.-13
For the private respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.9201 of 2024 dt.27-01-2025
2/4
For the State Election
Commission : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
: Mr.Girish Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-01-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private
respondent.
2. This writ application has been filed for the following
reliefs:
I. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders
for setting aside 'No Confidence Motion' passed against the
petitioner in special meeting held on 13.05.2024 whereby she has
been removed from the post of Pramukh of Chenari Panchayat
Samiti, Block Chenari District Rohtas at Sasaram.
II. For quashing the requisition dated 27.04.2024 issued
to the petitioner asking her to convene special meeting for
discussion on 'No Confidence Motion' against her on certain vague
and baseless charges.
III. For further direction/directions to the respondent
especially Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 restraining them from holding
election of the Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti, Chenari, District
Rohtas at Sasaram.
IV. For direction to the respondents directing them to
abide by section 44(3)(ii) of Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 2006 where
Patna High Court CWJC No.9201 of 2024 dt.27-01-2025
3/4
it has been stated that 'No Confidence Motion' against the
Pramukh may be brought only once in tenure of the Pramukh and
since 'No Confidence Motion' had been brought against the
petitioner on 16.01.2024, which was quashed by the Hon'ble Patna
High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1840 of 2024, therefore, second 'No
Confidence Motion' brought against the petitioner is absolutely
illegal and against the mandate of the Act.
V. For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner
may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
is no confidence motion against the petitioner was passed in her
absence and in absence of proper presentation of requisition as
mandated under Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
elected as Pramukh of Chenari Panchayat Samiti on 31.12.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 'No Confidence
Motion' was passed against the petitioner on 16.01.2024 and the
same was the subject matter of CWJC No.1840 of 2024 and after
hearing the parties the Hon'ble Court has been please to quash the
notice dated 08.01.2024 and further directed that the respective
parties including the elected members aggrieved may act in
accordance with law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9201 of 2024 dt.27-01-2025
4/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
thereafter the requisitionist has again filed requisition on
27.04.2024
for ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Section
4(3)(ii)of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, ‘No Confidence Motion’
cannot be brought against her as it happens to be the second ‘No
Confidence Motion’.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, private
respondents, State and the Bihar State Election Commission
submit that in view of the order dated 08.04.2024 passed in CWJC
No.1840 of 2024 that there is ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the
petitioner in the eye of law and the present requisition dated
27.04.2024 deemed to the first ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the
petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid, there is no need to interfere
in the impugned order. Accordingly, it is, dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 30.01.2025 Transmission Date
[ad_1]
Source link