The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure for conducting a meeting for removal, as prescribed by the Act, should be followed, and executive circulars cannot effectively fill the gap of absence of rules.

1. As pleadings are complete and a question of law is to be decided, with consent of parties, these writ petitions have been taken up for disposal at this stage itself, the issues being the same.

2. The two petitioners of the first writ application are Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Patna Municipal Corporation who were removed by a vote of no confidence motion in a hotly contested manner. Their initial challenge was based on the ground that in terms of Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007, they could be removed by majority supporting vote of no confidence in a special meeting called for this purpose in the manner "prescribed". "Prescribed" as is defined under the Act means prescribed by Rules. Thus, it is submitted that in absenee of Rules being framed in this regard, no meeting for considering no confidence motion at all could be called. Secondly, it was submitted that the executive circular issued being Circular No. 2360 dated 22.6.2009 (Annexure-3) could not take the place of Rules as required to be framed in terms of Section 25(4) of the Act. It was then contended that even otherwise, a circular, as aforesaid, could not alter and amend substantive law as made by the legislature and anything done in pursuance of the said executive circular was invalid in law.

3. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioners of the first writ application were elected Councillors in the election for Patna Municipal Corporation under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 . Thereafter, in the meeting of Councillors in the year 2007, they were duly elected as Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Corporation. In terms of Section 25(4), a requisition for special meeting for considering no confidence motion against the petitioners was moved on 13.6.2009 (Annexure-1). It may be noted that when this requisition was made, even the so-called executive circular was not in existence. Apparently, this requisition created a piquant problem. It was so because Section 51 of the Act provided that where a motion of removal of Chief Councillor (Mayor) is moved then he cannot preside over the meeting. It is Deputy Chief Councillor (Deputy Mayor) who would preside. Here, both Mayor and the Deputy Mayor were facing motions of no confidence. Apparently, in this situation, an executive circular was issued by the Government on 22.6.2009 dealing only with this contingency. This executive circular, which is Annexure-3 to the first writ petition, inter alia, provides that when requisition is made for removal of Mayor and Deputy Mayor simultaneously, it shall be made to the District Collector who shall fix a date and who shall preside over the meeting. There shall be no quorum and the District Magistrate would have the casting vote in case of tie.

4. In the present case, the requisition having been made to the Mayor because at that time, the circular was not there, the Mayor fixed 14.7.2009 as the date for holding the special meeting. The Town Commissioner of the Corporation then informed the District Magistrate that in view of the circular aforesaid dated 22.6.2009, he was required to preside over the meeting. Instead of himself presiding over the meeting, the District Magistrate- cum-Collector, Patna authorised an Additional District Magistrate to preside over the meeting. On the meeting being so held, the Mayor lost the confidence of the House by 39 to 30 votes whereas Deputy Mayor lost the confidence of the House by 42 to 28 votes. This having created vacancy, information was sent to the State Election Commission and State Election Commission then announced date and programme for fresh election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor which, by interim order earlier passed in this case, were stayed.

5. Two primary contentions have been raised by Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the first writ petition. Firstly, he submits that a reference to Section 25(4) would show that the manner in which the meeting has to be called and conducted for removal of the Mayor or the