Court : Patna
1. Heard Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General for the respondents.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.7.2007, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 14236 of 2006 dismissing the writ application.3. The short facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:The appellant, who was working on the post of Angan Bari Sevika, resigned from her post on 20th February, 2006 to contest for the post of Mukhiya of Pakharpur Gram Panchayat in the district of Arwal. Her resignation dated 20th February, 2006 was accepted on 21.2.2006 by the Aam Sabha. In the election for the post of Mukhiya, however, she was elected. After her election, the matter, however, was reported to the Election Commission that the appellant was disqualified to contest, the election of Mukhiya as she was an Angan Bari Sevika, coupled with the facts that her resignation was not accepted properly and she was holding a post of profit....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsels for the State Election Commission and the State.The petitioner seeks quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 127 dated 11.3.2002 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Urban Body), Samastipur, by which he has rejected the nomination paper filed by the petitioner on 7.3.2002 for the post of the Member of Ward Nos. 1 and 2 of Nagar Panchayat, Dalsingsarai.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, states that since fresh general elections to the Urban Municipal Body have already taken place, hence, stricto sensu the writ application has become infructuous by the passage of time, but it is stated by learned Counsel that the interpretation of the legal provisions of Section 17 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 1922 as amended by the Bihar Municipal (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, which provision is in pari materia to the prvisions contained in the present Bihar Municipal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. This Reference is necessitated on account of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in CWJC. No. 15551 of 2001, recorded on 19.3.2002, in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the proceedings recorded in Minapur Panchayat, on 26.11.2001, relating to the consideration of 'No Confidence Motion' initiated against the then pramukh and the then up-pramukh. The learned Single Judge in an elaborate reasoned judgment while concluding passed the following observations in the penultimate paragraph and the last paragraph of the said judgment.Let the matter be placed before My Lord, the Chief Justice for issuing proper directions to place the matter before a larger Bench. The Division Bench may also like to issue instructions/directions to the State Government to issue instructions or to frame rules in relation to form, submission and consideration of No Confidence Motion, specially that if pramukh himself fixes the date of such meeting to consider th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1.The controversy relating to reservation in the matter of education and service, which started since 1951, was ultimately set at rest in the end of 1992, by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.Immediately thereafter, by the Constitution's (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992, a new principle of reservation has been laid down under Article 243D of Constitution of India, in the matter of Panchayat election. The Respondent-State of Bihar then came out with Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'Panchayat Act, 1993') The aforesaid Constitutional Amendment and Panchayat Act, 1993 have now given rise to the new controversy relating to 'reservation in Panchayat election'. By the aforesaid 73rd Amendment of Constitution, followed by Panchayat Act, 1993, a new Provision has been laid down, reserving seats in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward class persons, in the matter of Panchayat election. As to whether such reservat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navin Singh, J.1. The petitioners are residents of village Kulharia under the territorial jurisdiction of the Kulharia Gram panchayat. Respondent No. 7 is a resident of Village Kuberchak, Dhandiha Gram Panchayat. The petitioners are voters of Kulharia Gram Panchayat while respondent No. 7 is a voter of Dhandiha Gram Panchayat. Both Gram Panchayats are under the Koilwar Block district Ghojpur. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 7 filed nominations for the post of Mukhiya of the Kulharia Gram Panchayat. The petitioner filed objection to the nomination filed by respondent No. 7 on the ground that he was not a voter of the Kulharia Gram Panchayat and therefore ineligible to file such nomination. The objection was rejected on 21-3-2007 by the Returning Officer. The elections took place and results were declared on 17-6-2006. Respondent No. 7 was elected as Mukhia.2. The issue for determination is, if a voter of one Gram Panchayat is eligible to contest for the post of Mukhiya from anothe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 8 in the first case, who is also the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12925/2008.2. Both the writ applications pertain to the same matter and they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. The petitioner, Neelam Kumari, in C.W.J.C. No. 13840 of 2008 seeks quashing of the order contained in memo No. 1221 dated 4.9.2008 (Annexure-14) issued under the signature of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Muzaffarpur, i.e., Respondent No. 5, by which it has been informed that in view of Section 18(4)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the Aam Sabha of Gram Panchayat Raj Tengrari under Meenapur Block of Muzaffarpur District will be held on 18.9.2008 at 11.00 A.M. in the B.R.C. Campus and for further consequential reliefs.4. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12925/2008, namely, Bisahwanath Prasad Kushwaha, on the other hand, has prayed that effect should be given...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing the decision and the proceedings of the Zila Parishad, Patna dated 11.8.2008 issued by the Respondent No. 4, the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner on 14.8.2008 (Annexure-3) by which he has declared the motion of no confidence taken up in the said meeting dated 11.8.2008 as having been defeated.3. The short facts of this case are that a special meeting was duly requisitioned by the Zila Parishad, Patna for considering the motion of no confidence against respondent No. 6, the Chairman, Zila Parishad, Patna. The Zila Parishad, Patna has 46 directly elected members. On 11.8.2008 in the special meeting as many as 27 of the directly elected members participated. However, when the voting on the no confidence motion took place three of the said members including the Adhayaksha, Zila Parishad did not participate in [he voting. Out of 24 remaining member...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the Bihar State Election Commission and learned Counsel for the State.2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 19.3.2009 passed, in Case No. 02 of 2009, by the State Election Commissioner, by which he has declared the petitioner disqualified as Councillor in terms of Section 18(1)(g) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and for further consequential reliefs.3. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and are not in dispute. The petitioner was elected as Ward Councillor for the Patna Municipal Corporation in the elections of the year 2007. Prior to the said election, the petitioner was made an accused in Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 441 dated 14.12.2005 under Section 25(1-B)/26 of the Arms Act. Subsequently by the judgment dated 22.12.2008 passed in Trial No. 1898 of 2008 by. the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna City, Patna, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous impri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. The two appellants, being the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Aurangabad Zila Parishad, have filed the present appeal against the order dated 26-9-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ application being CWJC No. 5204 of 2003 filed by them challenging the requisition dated 22-5-2003 (Annexure-4 to the writ application) for convening a special meeting for expressing want of confidence in them and the letter No. 57 dated 1-6-2003 issued by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad (Annexure-9 to the writ application) for convening the special meeting for the said purpose on 14-6-2003.2. As we propose to agree with the order passed by the learned Single Judge the factual matrix will be given in brief.3. The appellants No. 1 and 2 were elected as a Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Aurangabad Zila Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the Parishad) in the meeting held on 10th June, 2001. Within six months of assumption of office by them, some of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ramesh Kr. Datta, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to set aside the order dated 13.3,2006 passed by respondent No. 2, the Returning Officer (Panchayat) -cum-Circle Officer, Jamalpur, Munger, by which the nomination paper of the petitioner for election to the post of Mukhiya 2006 has been rejected/cancelled in the scrutiny on the ground that in the nomination form in column Nirbachan Chetra Sankhaya the petitioner has wrongly written the word 3 (three) instead of the word, 8 (eight) and further to restore the. petitioner's nomination.2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner bringing on record the impugned order dated 13,3.2006 which could not be filed by him earlier since it was not available when the writ petition was filed. From perusal of the said order it appears that the ground for rejection was that the voter serial number of both the candidate and the proposer were wrong. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the serial ...
Tag this Judgment!