The main legal point established is that the authority vested with the power of removal must adhere to the statutory provisions and rules governing the disposal of business, and any order lacking proper jurisdiction and authentication is invalid.

The petitioner is the Ex-Deputy Mayor of the Patna Municipal Corporation and by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.10.2015 bearing Memo No. 366 issued under the seal and signature of the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been removed from the post of Deputy Chief Councilor-cum-Deputy Mayor of the Patna Municipal Corporation for having incurred a disqualification under Section 25(5) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2. Fact of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner was elected as a Councillor, Patna Municipal Corporation in the year 2012 and was also elected the Deputy Chief Councillor of the Corporation. A complaint was filed by the private respondent before the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar under Section 25(5) of the ‘Act’ praying for removal of the petitioner from the post of Deputy Chief Councillor inter alia on grounds that he had avoided to attend three consecutive meetings of the Empowered Standing Committee and thus had lost interest in the affairs of the Municipal Corporation having wilfully omitted to attend the same and thus had incurred the disqualification entailing removal from the post of Deputy Chief Councillor under Section 25(5) of the ‘Act’.

3. Since the matter remained pending before the Principal Secretary that the private respondent moved this Court in CWJC No. 1825 of 2015 and this Court vide order passed on 02.02.2015 placed at Annexure-2 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department to dispose of the same in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties preferably within six months of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

4. The non-compliance of the directions led to the filing of the contempt application at the instance of the private respondent bearing M.J.C. No. 2552 of 2015 and it is during the pendency of the said contempt application that final orders were passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department on the application filed by the private respondent on 30.10.2015 whereby the petitioner stands removed from the post of Deputy Chief Councillor, Patna Municipal Corporation and being aggrieved he is before this Court.

5. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel has appeared for the petitioner, the State is represented by Mr. Uday Shankar Sharan Singh, G.P.-1, the Patna Municipal Corporation is represented by Mr. Prasoon Sinha and the private respondent is represented by Mr. S.B.K. Manglam. This matter was heard on 26.11.2015 and when this Court passed the following orders:

“Amongst other issues raised in the writ petition three primary issues of law has been raised by Mr. Jitendra Singh learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to question the order of removal passed against the petitioner by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department dated 30.10.2015 impugned at Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereunder the petitioner stands removed from the post of Deputy Chief Councillor, Patna Municipal Corporation under section 25(5) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the rules framed thereunder inter alia on the grounds of non-participation in the meetings of the Empowered Standing Committee on five consecutive dates. The issues raised by Mr. Singh inter alia are:-

(a) Since after the amendment of “the Act” vide Amendment Act 7 of 2011 whereunder the words “Divisional Commissioner” as occurring in Section 25(5) of “the Act” has been replaced by the word “Government” and the appellate power vested in the State Government under Sub-section (6) of