Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Pat) 822

I. A. ANSARI, ANJANA MISHRA
Sunita Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellant : M/s S.B.K. Manglam, Ravi Ranjan, Anita Kumari.
For the State : Mr. U.S.S. Singh.
For the Pvt. Resp. : M/s Y.V. Giri, Ashish Giri.
For the Resp.-S.E.C. : Mr. Amit Shrivastava.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The appeal held that whether a requisition was given to the Chief Councillor and whether she refused to accept it is a question of fact and cannot be decided in a writ petition; remedy lies in a civil suit. (!) (!) - If a requisition is given to a Chief Councillor and she refuses to receive it, it does not defeat the requisitionists’ right to call a special meeting if the meeting is not convened in accordance with law. (!) - The writ petition was dismissed; the appellant was given liberty to approach a civil court of competent jurisdiction for redressal. (!) (!) - The prerequisite for calling a special meeting is to fix a date for the meeting in accordance with the Rules; failure to do so allows requisitionists to proceed under statutory provisions. (!) (!) - The Court emphasized that disputed questions of fact require recording evidence, which is not permissible in a writ petition under Article 226. (!) - There is no order as to costs in the dismissal of the appeal. (!)

What is the right remedy when a requisition for a No Confidence Motion is not acted upon by the Chief Councillor according to Rule 2(i) of the Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010?

What is the court’s stance on deciding whether a requisition was given to the Chief Councillor and whether the Chief Councillor refused to accept it, in a writ petition?

What are the appropriate legal avenues available to the requisitionists and the Chief Councillor when disputes over requisition and convening a special meeting arise?

I.A. ANSARI, ACJ.:–Heard Mr. S. B. K. Mangalam, learned Counsel, for the appellant, and Mr. U. S. S. Singh, learned Government Pleader No. 1, appearing for the State. Also heard Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the private respondents, and Mr. Amit Srivastava, learned Counsel, appearing for the State Election Commission.

2. The appellant came to this Court with a writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to CWJC No. 12923 of 2015, questioning the initiation of proceedings of No Confidence Motion against her on the ground that the requisition, in question, dated 08.08.2015, seeking her removal from the Office of the Chief Councillor, Nagar Panchayat Marhaura, Saran, at Chapra, by way of No Confidence Motion, had not been served on, or furnished to, her; rather, the requisition had been given to the Office of the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Marhaura, Saran, at Chapra, by ignoring, thus, the statutory provisions embodied in Rule 2 (i) of the Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010, read with Section 25 (4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, which warrant that requisition for No Confidence Motion shall be gi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(Pat) 822

I. A. ANSARI, ANJANA MISHRASunita Devi – AppellantVersusState of Bihar – Respondent

What is the right remedy when a requisition for a No Confidence Motion is not acted upon by the Chief Councillor according to Rule 2(i) of the Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010?

What is the court’s stance on deciding whether a requisition was given to the Chief Councillor and whether the Chief Councillor refused to accept it, in a writ petition?

What are the appropriate legal avenues available to the requisitionists and the Chief Councillor when disputes over requisition and convening a special meeting arise?

I. A. ANSARI, ANJANA MISHRA
Sunita Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent