Skip to content


Rajesh Sah Vs. the State of Bihar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Civil
CourtPatna High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.W.J.C. No. 11078 of 2003
Judge
AppellantRajesh Sah
RespondentThe State of Bihar and ors.
Appellant AdvocateDhrub Narayan, Sr. Adv.
Respondent AdvocateArchana Meenakshee, JC to AAG II and Dinesh Pd. Verma and T.N. Singh, Advs. for respondent Nos. 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
panchayat samiti - no confidence motion--convening of meeting for--nominated members have no right to requisition a meeting of no confidence and have no right to vote in such meeting--meeting for no confidence has to be requisitioned by one third of those persons who have right to vote--in present case 10 out of 17 were justified in requisitioning the meeting and moving the no confidence. - - his submission is that the meeting was requisitioned by 10 members only and as the minimum requirement was 11 being one third, the requisition was bad......learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the nominated members have no right to requisition a meeting of no confidence and as they have no right to vote in such a meeting, therefore, the meeting could have been called only by one third elected members and as in the present matter 10 members out of 17 have requisitioned the meeting, there was nothing wrong in it. for the coram and adjournment of the meeting it is submitted on their behalf that as the coram was not found complete on 14.8.2003, the meeting was adjourned to 15.8.2003 and nobody raised any objection against it.3. i have heard the parties.4. true it is that the panchayat samiti is constituted of 32 members but the fact remains that only 17 elected members have a right to vote in the meeting. if all.....
Judgment:

R.S. Garg, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved by Resolution dated 15.8.2003 in which no confidence has been expressed against him is before this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Panchayat Samiti is constituted of 32 members, our of which 17 are elected members while 15 are nominated members. His submission is that the meeting was requisitioned by 10 members only and as the minimum requirement was 11 being one third, the requisition was bad. His further submission is that the meeting was directed to be convened on 14.8.2003 but it was adjourned for want of coram to 15.8.2003. The submission, in fact, is that the meeting was not adjourned to some other convenient date. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the nominated members have no right to requisition a meeting of no confidence and as they have no right to vote in such a meeting, therefore, the meeting could have been called only by one third elected members and as in the present matter 10 members out of 17 have requisitioned the meeting, there was nothing wrong in it. For the coram and adjournment of the meeting it is submitted on their behalf that as the coram was not found complete on 14.8.2003, the meeting was adjourned to 15.8.2003 and nobody raised any objection against it.

3. I have heard the parties.

4. True it is that the Panchayat Samiti is constituted of 32 members but the fact remains that only 17 elected members have a right to vote in the meeting. If all the members including elected and nominated are required to join the issue and their total strength is taken for purposes of requisitioning a No Confidence Meeting then it is likely to create a chaotic condition. Out of 15 nominated members, any 11 can make an application to the Pramukh that they express no confidence in him, therefore, a meeting be convened. It would be travesty of law that on such a requisition, a meeting is called. In such a meeting, those persons who are requisitioning the meeting would have no right to vote and if every time they are allowed to requisition the meeting then that would create a real problem. A special meeting for purposes of considering no confidence has to be requisitioned by one third of those persons, who have a right to vote. In the present matter, 10 out of 17 were justified in requisitioning the meeting and moving the no confidence.

5. So far adjournment of the meeting from 14th to 15th is concerned, if for want of coram and on no objection being raised by anybody, the meeting was adjourned to 15.8.2003, then nothing wrong can be found in it, even if 15th August was a national holiday. I find no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //