BINDU DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A requisition was submitted to the petitioner, who was the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti. The requisitionists requested the petitioner to convene a meeting to remove the petitioner from the post of Pramukh and also to remove the Up-Pramukh. The petitioner did not issued the notice convening such meeting. The requisitionists then approached the Executive Officer who convened such a meeting. The first ground of challenge of holding of this meeting pursuant to the said notice is that the reasons for the motion had not been indicated in the notice.

(2.) It is true, as will appear from a bare perusal of the notice, that the reasons in support of the motion had not been indicated in the notice. The notice also does not say that a copy of the requisition is being annexed with the notice. Therefore, It is true that the notice did not convey the reasons. It appears to be the legislative mandate that such reasons must accompany the notice. However, the petitioners cannot defeat the notice nor can have the same declared invalid for the notice did not convey the reasons in support thereof inasmuch as the object of giving reasons is to enable the members to know why the motion is being proposed and the petitioners having had received the original requisition containing full reasons were made aware of the same, and accordingly they did not suffer at all.

(3.) It is claimed that the Up-Pramukh was at that time away for fixation of the marriage of his daughter. It has not been stated anywhere in the body of the petition that before leaving, the Up-Pramukh informed the Panchayat Samiti that he will not be available for the period in question.