R.M.Prasad, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners who claim to be the voters of Sitamarhi Assembly Constituency No. 67, have prayed for issuance of writ of quo warranto or any other writ or direction commanding Sahid Ali Khan (respondent No. 4) to vacate the seat of Bihar Legislative Assembly representing said Sitamarhi Assembly constitutency and have further prayed to declare the said seat of the Bihar Legislative Assembly as vacant and to award suitable punishment to respondent No. 4 for usurping the post of M.L.A. in flagrant disregard of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the R.P. Act)and the Constitution of India.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. Respondent No. 4 contested the election in question and was declared elected by a margin of 35 votes as a member of Rastriya Janata Dal. It is stated that Patna Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the PIADA) was constituted by virtue of Notification No. S.O. 908 dated 27-6-1973, vide Annexure-1, by the Governor of Bihar in exercise of power conferred under Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 3 of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Ordinance, 1973 (Bihar Ordinance No. 42 of 1973) which subsequently was replaced by Bihar Act 16 of 1974, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2. It is alleged that respondent No. 4 by virtue of his being inevitable supporter for the ruling Rastriya Janata Dal party got himself appointed as the Chairman of the PIADA, vide Notification No. 11328, dated 4-9-1991, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 4 not only got himself appointed as Chairman of the PIADA but also managed to get the benefits available to a Minister of State by virtue of notification dated 15-11-1991 of the Department of Parliamentary Affairs of the State of Bihar, a true copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4.

3. It is stated that since after 4-9-1991, respondent No. 4 continued to remain as the Chairman of PIADA and derived the benefits including salary and allowances admissible to a State Minister till date, which is evident from letter No. 252 Stha. dated 8-3-1999 (Annexure-5). It is also stated that from the aforesaid letter (Annexure-5), it would appear that respondent No, 4 was getting pay of Rs. 2,000.00 per month, regional allowance at the rate of Rs. 6,000.00 per month, besides Rs. 1,500.00 per month as guest allowance with effect from 30-4-1998 i.e., before his election to the Assembly in the year 2000 and is still getting the said benefits. In addition to the above, he was getting free furnished accommodation, free electricity, a hierarchy of staff and Rs. 1,500.00 per month as conveyance allowance. However, by virtue of Parliamentary Affairs Department Notification No. 269, dated 11-3-1999 (Annexure-6), the State Government withdrew the benefits and privilege of the State Minister available to respondent No. 4 with effect from 12-2-1999, but by subsequent Notification No. 351 dated 13-5-1999 (Annexure-7), notification dated 11-3-1999 (Annexure-6) was recalled and it was ordered that respondent No. 4 will continue to avail the benefits and privileges available to a Minister of State with retrospective effect from 12-2-1999.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar (respondent No. 1), it is stated that the facts are either matter of records or that it relates to PIADA. However, with respect to letter No. 269 dated 11 -3-1999 (Annexure-6) and letter No. 351, dated 13-5-1999 (Annexure-7), it is stated that they were not issued by the Department of Parliamentary Affairs, rather were issued by the PIADA. According to the State, the Parliamentary Affairs Department had issued letter No. 132, dated 26-2-1999 withdrawing the status and privileges of Ministers and the State Ministers to the Chairperson of Boards/Nigam/Parishad/Samities/Pradhikar, etc. but later the department