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
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.
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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.