The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Municipal Act are workable even without framing of the rules, and the absence of rules would not vitiate the act if the provisions of the Act can be given effect to.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. In this batch of appeals, the assail is to the common order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of three writ petitions, namely, CWJC No. 7646 of 2009, CWJC No. 7567 of 2009 and CWJC No. 8075 of 2009, whereby he has directed the Chief Councillor to fix and notify a special meeting with regard to no confidence motion against him and the Deputy Chief Councillor in accordance with the requisition as received and seek confidence of the House within the period as provided under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (for brevity, the Act).

2. Be it noted, though there were three writ petitions and three appeals have been preferred against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge, yet the factual exposition in all the cases has an inseparable thread of commonality and, therefore, it is apposite to adumbrate the facts in singular compartment.

3. Eighteen Councillors of Madhubani Nagar Parishad filed requisition for convening special meeting of the Nagar Parishad for considering of the vote of no confidence against the Chief Councillor as well as the Deputy Chief Councillor. On the basis of the requisition, the Chief Councillor fixed the meeting to 16.7.2009 and noticed the Councillors. On the 9th of July, 2009, the In-charge Additional Collector informed the Chief Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad that in view of the order dated 8.7.2009 of the District Magistrate, Madhubani, the special meeting relating to the vote of no confidence against the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor should be adjourned to 10.30 a.m. on 17.7.2009 and the said meeting should be held at the Vikash Bhawan. It is the admitted position that the Collector-cum-District Magistrate had received the earlier communication from the Nagar Parishad in which the meeting was fixed to 16.7.2009. As the Collector-cum-District Magistrate had no role in the scheme of the Act, the said order passed by the Collector came to be challenged in CWJC No. 8075 of 2009. The writ petition came to be filed by the petitioners who are the Chief Councilor and the Deputy Chief Councillor.

4. In CWJC No. 7646 of 2009, a Ward Member assailed the notice containing memo no. 442 dated 1.7.2009 issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Madhubani by which he had directed the Chief Councillor to call a meeting on 16.7.2009 at 11.a.m. for consideration of the no confidence motion. The notice issued by the Executive Officer contained the circular issued by the State Government, as contained in memo no. 2360 dated 22.6.2009, wherein it has been stipulated that the meeting would be held as per the procedure laid down in the said circular. Be it noted, the said circular has been issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing. The writ petitioner challenged the circular on the ground that in the said circular, it has been stipulated that once a notice has been given for holding a meeting of no confidence motion, the same shall not be postponed and for discussion on the motion, there would be no necessity for a quorum. To put it otherwise, it has been conveyed by the circular that the meeting of no confidence would be allowed to continue even if the minimum quorum is not fulfilled. It was contended that the authority had no power to issue such a circular as that would run counter to the mandate of the statute.

5. In CWJC No. 7567 of 2009 filed by the petitioner-Chief Councillor of the Municipal Council, it was stated that after getting the information from the Chief Executive Officer, he had instructed on 22.6.2009 for convening the meeting of the council on 16.7.2009, but the same was adjourned by the Collector placing reliance on the circular dated 22.6.2009 which had no legs to stand upon. It was also urged that the District Magistrate had no right to change the date or to preside over the meeting. It was also contended that in the absence of any framing of rules as mandated under Section