Full Judgment
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
1. Petitioners seeks permission to delete respondents Nos. 5 to 266 who are the members of the Zila Parishad, Nawada. Leave is granted. Respondents Nos. 5 to 26 are deleted.
2. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner, who is a member of the Nawada Zilla Parishad for setting aside the resolution of the Zila Parishad dated 27-8-2007 (Annexure-5) in so far as it disapproves the earlier resolution dated 30-5 2007 (the second resolution taken in the said meeting held on the said date). It is submitted that the second resolution dated 27-8-2007 disapproving and modifying the earlier resolution is in contravention to and in conflict with Section 72(9) of the Gram Panchayat Act. The Zila Parishad and the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad have appeared and have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it has been asserted that in the second meeting dated 27-8-2007 which was called in pursuance to the mandate as contained in Section 72(1) of the said Act, all the members present and voting unanimously, decided to disapprove the earlier resolution and substantially modify the same. The meeting being called in pursuance to the obligations set out under Section 72(1), the resolutions passed therein could not be invalidated.
3. Having heard the counsel for the parties and considering the matter, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
4. Zila Parishad is a form of Local Self Government. Its members are elected. It is an elected body. It has its own jurisdiction and it has its own independent right to decide about its functions and execution of works but while taking decisions, they are expected to abide by the provisions of law in this regard.
5. Section 72 deals with meeting of the Zila Parishad. Section 72(1), so far as relevant, is quoted herein:
72. Meeting of the Zila Parishad - (1) The Zila Parishad shall hold its meetings at least once in every three months, at such time and at such place within the local limit of the district concerned as the Zila Parishad may fix at the immediately preceding meeting.
5.1 In substance, Section 72 (1) makes it incumbent upon the Zila Parishad to meet at least once in three months. This authorises the meeting. It does not deal with the business to be conducted in such a meeting.
6. Section 72(9) is quoted hereunder:
(9) No resolution of Zila Parishad shall be modified or cancelled within six months after the passing thereof except by a resolution passed by not less than one-half of the total number of members at an ordinary or special meeting any notice whereof shall have been given fulfilling the requirement of Sub-section (4) and setting forth fully resolution which it is proposed to modify fully or cancel at such meeting and motion or proposition for the modification or cancellation of such resolution.
This provision deals with the business in the meeting of the Zila Parishad. This provision clearly prohibits the Zila Parishad from modifying or cancelling any of its resolution within six months. It further stipulates that the resolution can be cancelled or modified within a period of six months but there are additional safeguards in this regard. This is firstly that there must be communication of the resolution to be considered while convening the meeting and secondly that the resolution has to be passed by majority at ordinary or special meeting.
7. It would, thus, be seen that the prerequisite for premature cancellation or modification of a resolution is prior notice to members while convening the meeting and second that once meeting is so convened with prior notice it must be carried through by majority that is required in ordinary or special meeting.
8. To my mind, the purpose of making such a provision, as contained in Section 72(1) and Section 72(9) are different and distinct. The first obliges the Zila Parishad to meet once in every three months and the second restricts some of its business which can only be done in a particular manner as prescribed by the Legislature. The conditions specified in Section 72(9) of prior notice to members is of grave importance. If a resolution is brought in the meeting all of a sudden without notice, the members will not have time to deliberate, discuss or reflect upon it. They would be taken by surprise. Such a consideration, the Legislature has considered to be inadequate. Therefore, a prior notice as prescribed in terms of Section 72(9) is a mandatory requirement if a resolution is to be modified within six months.
9. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that there was no such prior notice given. There being no such prior notice being given, members could not be expected to be knowing that such a resolution was intended to be taken up. This was clearly contrary to the mandatory provisions and that being so subsequent passing of the resolution on 27-8-2007 was in violation of the mandatory procedure as laid down. The learned Counsel appearing for the Zila parishad points out that a notice was in fact given (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). A reference to Annexure-4 would show that it does not mention about any resolution which has to be considered for cancelling or modifying the earlier resolution. It further does not state as to what is the resolution that has to be taken up. In my view, this is not at all a compliance of Section 72(9) of the Act. In that view of the matter, I have no option but to hold that the resolution dated 27-8-2007, disapproving and modifying the earlier resolution, has no legal validity and cannot be acted upon.
10. The learned Counsel for the Zila Parishad then submitted that this resolution, which is being set aside by this Court having unanimously passed, should not be interfered with as that shows the will of the people. I am afraid, the submission cannot be accepted on the simple ground that where the statute provides a procedure or lays down a manner for doing a thing even by a democratic body then the thing must be done in accordance with the statutory directions and all other modes are impliedly prohibited. This is a well established principle and in that view of the matter, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted.
11. In the result, the writ application is allowed. Annexure 5, in so far as it disapproves and modifies the relevant resolution dated 3-5-2007 is concerned, is set aside.