The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following procedural requirements, the consequences of participating in a meeting, and the availability of a separate remedy for challenging an election.

1. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate appearing in support of this writ petition, the J.C. to Govt. Pleader No. VI appearing for the State and Mr. S.S. Asghar Husain, Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no. 5; also heard Mr. S.S. Nayar Husain, learned Senior Advocate representing one set of intervenors and Mr. Sanjay Kumar appearing for another intervenor.

2. On 10.6.2001 the petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the newly constituted Zila Parishad, Arrah. The Zila Parishad consists of 58 members in which the number of elected members is 31. On 28.9.2001 twelve members of the Parishad made a requisition for convening a special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner (the Chairman), and the Vice Chairman. No special meeting, however, could materialise on the basis of that requisition. Then on 29.10.2001, another requisition was made by 10 members for holding a special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner and the Vice Chairman. In pursuance of the requisition, dated 29.10.2001 the Dist. Magistrate convened a meeting on 27.10.2001 (sic27.11.2001 ?) in which the motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioner and the Vice Chairman with 18 members voting in favour of the motion and note (sicnone ?) voting against it. The petitioner was, thus, removed from the elected office of Chairman of the Zila Parishad.

3. He filed this writ petition in this court on 20.12.2001, challenging his removal on the basis of the vote of no confidence passed in the meeting of 27.11.2001. A few days later and even before this writ petition could be taken up for admission, the court closed for the X-mas holidays. In the mean while a meeting of the Zila Parishad was convened by the Dist. Magistrate on 31.12.2001 for electing a new Chairman and a Vice Chairman to fill up the vacancies caused by the removal of the petitioner and the earlier Vice Chairman. Notices for the meeting of 31.12.2001 were duly sent to individual members and also appeared in the news paper. The petitioner protested against the holding of the meeting on 31.12.2001 and in that regard he submitted an application before the Dist. Magistrate. In his application, the petitioner stated that challenging his removal from the office he had filed a writ petition before this court which could not be taken up as the court had closed for X-mas holidays and requested that the meeting for electing a new Chairman should be postponed till the final decision of his case. In the absence of any order, final or interim from any court, the Dist. Magistrate disregarded the petitioners request not to hold the meeting on 31.12.2001. The meeting was held as scheduled and interestingly the petitioner chose to participate in the meeting. He not only participated in the meeting but also contested the election for the post of Chairman. He filed his nomination setting himself up as a candidate. He, however, lost the election in the meeting of 31.12.2001 with respondent no. 5 getting 13 votes and the petitioner getting 12.

4. When this court reopened after the X-mas holidays, the petitioner filed an amendment petition on 7.1.2002 in which prayers were made to implead respondent no. 5 as a respondent who was elected as the new Chairman of the Zila Parishad and to quash the entire proceedings of the meeting of 31.12.2001. The writ petition along with the amendment petition was taken up for the first time on 10.1.2002. On that date, the prayer made in the amendment petition were allowed and an interim order was passed making the election of respondent no. 5 subject to the final result of this case and further directing that during the pendency of this case all financial transactions of the Zila Parishad will be made by the Dist. Development Officer who was the Executive Officer of the Parishad and not by respondent no. 5. However, from that order it appears that at that stage it was not brought to the notice of the court that