Court : Patna
S.B. Sinha, J.1.This application is directed against an order dated 26-2-1993 passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been declared unfit to discharge his functions Up-Mukhiya purported to be in terms of the provisions of Section 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The fact of the matter lies in very narrow compass.The petitioner joined Central Co-operative Bank as a Peon and has been working in that capacity since then.3. The Mukhiya of Karyanna Bindidih Gram Panchayat was removed whereafter the petitioner was elected to the post Executive member of the Panchayat and later on elected to the post of Up-Mukhiya. The petitioner was asked to perform the duties of the Mukhiya by an order dated 11-11-1992 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application.4. However, as noticed hereinbefore, by reason of the impugned order, the District Magistrate had found that he cannot function as a Mukhiya in view...
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
Nagendra Rai, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for a declaration that he may he allowed to continue as a member of the Block Panchayat Samiti as well as a member of the Zila Parishad at the same time after his election to the said posts and the direction issued by the State Election Commission in exercise of the power under Rule 121 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), as contained in Memo No. 4563 dated 24-5-2001 in Clause (da) providing that if one candidate has been elected for more than one post in the Panchayat Election then, he will be administered oath on all the elected posts but within fifteen days of taking oath the candidate has to express his willingness to continue on one post in writing to the concerned authority and, thereafter, his election to other posts shall stand cancelled, is invalid as the same is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 139(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (herein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai, J.1. The two petitioners, who were duly elected as Pramukh and Up-pramukh, respectively, of Minapur Panchayat Samiti, have filed the present writ application for quashing the resolution dated 4-9-2001 (Annexure 4) taken in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti in question, whereby no confidence motion has been passed against them by 21 votes.2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that on 19-6-2001, an election was held, in which petitioner No. 1 Chandeshwar Prasad was elected as Pramukh and petitioner No. 2 Krishnadeo Prasad was elected as Up-pramukh of the said Panchayat Samiti. They took charge of the aforesaid posts and started functioning thereon. It is to be stated that up-till now there is no devolution of power and function to the Panchayat Samitis. respondent No. 5, namely, Suresh Rai, a member of the said Panchayat Samiti, was the candidate for the post of Pramukh and was defeated. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 5 wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai, J.1. Two writ petitioners have filed the present writ petition for quashing the order of the State Election Commission (for short 'the Commission') dated 11-4-2001, issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Commission addressed to the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Nawadah, cancelling the electrion of all the office bearers of the Narhat Gram Panchayat and directing to take steps for fresh election, and for quashing the consequential order dated 12-4-2001 issued by the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, (Panchayat), Nawadah, addressed to the Election Officer, Narhat Prakhand informing about the aforesaid order dated 11-4-2001 of the Commission and also for quashing the decision of the Commission dated 23-7-2001, issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Commission giving direction for holding a fresh election of the different posts of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat. Copies of the said directions/orders have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. This is a matter which deals with criminals in politics at the grassroot level. The State Government had been directed by the Court to place a list of Mukhiyas who may have been convicted of an offence, or for that matter, were inherently disqualified under law so as not to be the members of Panchayats, information being given to the Court is coming slowly. This aspect the Court will leave for later.2. Sooner or later the question will arise that if there be information, as a fact, that certain members of Panchayats have indeed been convicted, then, what is to be done. Plainly, this is a matter where a member of a Panchayat may be disqualified for being part of it. Does the Constitution of India give any guidance on such situations? It does. As amended, Part IX, the Chapter. The Panchayat, Article 243F does mention disqualification for membership. This Article also casts an obligation on the State Government that the law must provide for taking care of such situations. The next que...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.S. Garg, J.1. The petitioner who was declared as returned candidate, was candemned in the election petition as a law breaker and a person who committed misconduct during the course of counting of votes. The election petition filed by the present Respondent No. 4 was basically based upon the material pleading that there were some bunglings in counting of the votes, some votes which were cast in favour of the election petitioner were mixed in the lots of the returned candidate and despite his application for recount the Returning Officer, for the reasons best known to him, did not order for recount. The present petitioner/returned candidate contested the election petition on all possible grounds and inter alia pleaded that there were no illegalities in counting votes and as the application for recount of the vote did not provide any substance or material to persuade the Returning Officer for recount, the application was rightly not considered.2. As the parties joined sales, certain is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J.1. All these writ petitions raise a common question of law and seek the same relief(s) on behalf of the respective petitioners. These cases were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners in all the five writ petitions are wholesale kerosene dealers. They hold dealerships from different petrol companies and carry on their business on the basis of wholesale kerosene dealer's licences issued under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order). They are aggrieved by the direction for cancellation of their licences issued by the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Food, Supplies and Commerce, Government of Bihar under his circular letter No. 3281, dated 6-8-2002 (Annexure-8 in C. W.J.C. 9944 of 2002). It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the direction issued by the Commissioner, Food, Supplies and Commerce is illegal and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.N. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the requisition for convening the special meeting dated 22-5-2003, Annexure 4, and also letter No. 57 dated 1 -6-2003 issued by the respondent No. 3 convening the special meeting of Aurangabad Zila Parishad, Annexure 9. 2. Petitioner No. 1 was elected Chairman and petitioner No. 2 was elected Vice-Chairman of the Aurangabad Zila Parishad on 10-6-2001. Since then they have been working as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Zila Parishad. On 22-11-2001 some members of the Zila Parishad filed a petition expressing no confidence in the petitioners and requested for convening the special meeting. The special meeting was convened on 6-12-2001 and after voting the no confidence motion failed. On 22-5-2003 sixteen members of the Aurangabad Zila Parishad filed a petition before the petitioner Nos. 1 stating reasons for expressing no confidence in the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, the petitioners, and requested to convene the special meeting, An...
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!