SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Pat) 406

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
I.A. ANSARI and HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Amrawati Devi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.2294 of 2015
Decided On : 22-06-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vinod Kanth, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, P.A.A.G., Mr. U.S.S. Singh, G.P.-I., Mr. R.K. Chandram, A.C. to G.P.-I.
For the Respondent No. 6:Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Piyush Lall, Mr. Yash Singh, Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate.
For the Corporation :Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate.

Headnote:Bihar Municipal Act, 2007–Sections 25 (5) & 44–read with Patna High Court Rules, Appendix-E-Clause 10–The appellant elected as Deputy Chief Councillor consequent to the vacancy fallen on account of removal of respondents no. 6–She has a right to impugn the decision of setting aside the removal of Respondent no. 6 to which she, as a Municipal Councillor, has a right being a member of the elected representative body–she is a proper party in the appeal even if she is not a necessary party–a necessary party to be impleaded as respondent, in an application, stands on a different footing than right to file an appeal aggrieved against a decision, which affects the right of the entire elected body–appellant has a right to file the present appeal. (Para 13)

       Bihar Municipal Act, 2007–Sections 25(5) & 44–read with Rules 5, 11, 21, 22 and 23 of Rules of Executive Business–Removal of Chief Councilor/Deputy Chief Councillor of Patna Municipal Corporation–since the issue is of removal of an elected representative and not leading to any policy decision, the same is required to be exercised by apolitical person, who is free from all bias and prejudices–therefore, in the context of Section 25 (5) of the Act, the powers of the Government are not to be exercised by the Minister-in-Charge as the Rules have no applicability in relation to removal of a member inasmuch as it does not deal with executive power of the State –Order of Single Judge set aside–Writ application dismissed. (Paras 29 & 33)

       (2016)2 SCC 779; AIR 1970 SC 1102–Referred.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order, dated 14th of December, 2015, passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 17721 of 2015, whereby the writ application filed by Respondent No. 6 removing him from the post of Deputy Chief Councillor-cum-Deputy Mayor of the Patna Municipal Corporation was set aside.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the elections of the Municipal Corporation, Patna, were held in the year 2012 and Respondent No. 6 herein, Roop Narayan, was elected as Deputy Chief Councillor of the Corporation. A complaint was filed by Binod Kumar, Respondent No.5 herein, seeking removal of Roop Narayan from the post of Deputy Chief Councillor, inter alia, on the ground that he has avoided to attend three consecutive meetings of the Empowered Standing Committee and, thus, lost interest in the affairs of the Municipal Corporation. On account of failure to attend three consecutive meetings of the Empowered Standing Committee, it was submitted that Roop Narayan incurred disqualification entailing removal from the post of Deputy Chief Councillor under Section 25(5) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. Since no action was taken on the complaint, the Respondent No. 5, Binod Kumar, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for directing the respondents to take an appropriate decision on the complaint made by him. This Court disposed of the writ application on 2nd of February, 2015, with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, to take an appropriate action in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties, preferably, within six months of the receipt/production of a copy of the said order. The said order reads as under :-

“The limited grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that an application filed before the Principal Secretary under Section 25(5) {incorrectly mentioned as 25(4)} of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking removal of the private respondent No. 4 remains pending before the Principal Secretary though it was filed on 23.9.2014.

A statutory application filed before the statutory authority requires disposal in accordance with law and cannot be allowed to remain pending and thus considering the limited grievance raised in this writ petition, the present application is disposed of with the direction to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar to consider the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on 23.9.2014, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-6 to the writ petition and dispose of the same in accordance with law and after giving opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties including the respondent No. 4, expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.”

4. Since the order, dated 2nd of February, 2015 aforementioned, was not complied with a contempt application was filed. It was during the pendency of the contempt application that a final order was passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, on 30th of October, 2015, whereby Roop Narayan was removed from the post of Deputy Chief Councillor, Patna Municipal Corporation.

5. The argument of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Bench, inter alia, was that in terms of Section 25(5) of the Act, an order could be passed only by the State Government and that jurisdiction would vest in the Minister-in-Charge of the Department in view of Rules 5, 11, 21, 22 and 23 of the Rules of Executive Business and the schedule thereto framed by the Hon’ble Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Bench accepted the argument and held that the removal of Roop Narayan is by an authority not authorized by law.

6. Another argument rais















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top