JUDGMENT :

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

Heard Shri P. K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Shri S. B. K. Manglam, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 as well as Shri Yogendra Prasad Sinha, learned Additional Advocate General-7 for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Alok Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

2. The appeal questions the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant in respect of a no confidence motion having been carried out against him removing him from the office of the Chief Councillor, Khusrupur Nagar Panchayat, Patna.

3. The facts in short which are not disputed are that a requisition for carrying out no confidence motion signed by seven members was sent on 14th of January, 2019. However, before the date of the meeting for considering the proposal of no confidence against the appellant, the very same Councillors, who had moved the requisition, withdrew their letter on 4th of February, 2019. After the said withdrawal, meetings were held thereafter and a fresh requisition was sent for convening a meeting to consider a no confidence motion against the appellant on 20th of February, 2019.

4. The notice for the said requisition was made known to the petitioner vide letter dated 25th February, 2019. Challenging the said proceedings initiated for a fresh no confidence motion, the appellant came up before this Court contending that the said initiation was in violation of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 25 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, inasmuch as, once the earlier proceedings of no confidence motion had been withdrawn, then a fresh no confidence motion could not have been brought again within one year of the previous initiation and secondly, even otherwise such a motion could not have been considered as the residual period of six months as contemplated in the last proviso of sub-section (4) of Section 25 was only left which created a bar for bringing about the said no confidence motion. Consequently, for the aforesaid two grounds, the no confidence motion was untenable that came to be challenged in the writ petition giving rise to the present controversy.

5. The writ petition was entertained and an interim order was passed on 15th March, 2019 to the effect that the results of the no confidence motion which was to be tabled on 18th March, 2019 shall not be declared.

6. The writ petition was ultimately heard and finally dismissed on 22nd July, 2019 whereafter the results were declared and the appellant has been removed by virtue of the no confidence motion that was carried out on 18th March, 2019. Section 25(4) of the 2007 Act is extracted hereinunder for the ready reference:

(4) The Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor may be removed from office by a resolution carried by a majority of the whole number of Councillors holding office for the time being at a special meeting to be called for this purpose in the manner prescribed, upon a requisition made in writing by not less than one-third of the total number of Councillors, and the procedure for the conduct of business in the special meeting shall be such as may be prescribed:

Provided that a no confidence motion shall not be brought against the Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor within a period of two years of taking over the charge of the post:

Provided further that a no confidence motion shall not be brought again within one year of the first no confidence motion:

Provided further also that no confidence motion shall not be brought within the residual period of six months of the municipality.

7. While advancing his submissions, Shri P. K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel has urged that once the previous no confidence motion had been initiated under the statutory provision of Section 25(4) of 2007 Act, then the presumption in law would be that the motion has been brought about and, therefore, the bar contained in the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 25 would be c