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

2021 Supreme(Pat) 32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Shivaji Pandey, J.
Mira Devi, Late Dilip Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7279 of 2020
Decided On : 05-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Advocate, Y.P. Sinha, Advocate, Y.C. Verma, Advocate, Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Prakash Srivastava, Advocate, Sandeep Kumar, Advocate, Amit Srivastava, Advocate, Girish Pandey, Advocate, Anil Kumar, Advocate

Headnote:

Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 – Sections 25(4) and 48(3) – Bihar Municipal No-Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 – Rule 2 (iii) – No-Confidence Motion against Chief Councillor and Deputy Chief Councillor – Notice was sent to petitioners on different occasions informing date of meeting – As one notice was not containing charges and to avoid this complication, a corrigendum was issued in notice mentioning therein list of charges levelled against them and Executive Officer has again sent a notice to requisitionists to participate in proceeding as there was no mandate of clear seven days notice from date of notice for holding the special meeting for "No Confidence Motion" rather it is 72 hours notice to be given and thereby meeting for "No-Confidence Motion" was conducted in which petitioners failed to participate therein – Later on, fresh meeting of Councillors was held for election and selection of Chief Councillor and Deputy Chief Councillor in which respondent no.9 and respondent no. 7 have been declared successful for post of Chief Councillor and Deputy Chief Councillor respectively – Petitioner no.1 has specifically rejected motion on her personal reason, that is not permissible in law – When she received a notice, she was bound to fix a date of special meeting for "No Confidence Motion", failure to conduct motion, requisitionist does have right to hold special meeting and take a decision as per law provides – "No Confidence Motion" Rule exposits that Executive Officer is the only authority to issue notice relating to convening meeting or special meeting – Application dismissed. (Paras 21 to 26)

JUDGMENT

Shivaji Pandey, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.

2. In the present case, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings of special meeting dated 07.08.2020 of Nagar Panchayat, Maner, which was convened for consideration of "No Confidence Motion" against the petitioners, who were holding the post of Chief Councillor and Deputy Chief Councillor respectively and further seeking direction to the respondent authorities for reinstatement of the petitioners to the post, which they were holding before they were removed i.e. on 07.08.2020 through the "No Confidence Motion" passed against them by the majority of Ward Councillors of the said Nagar Panchayat.

3. The petitioners contested the election of Ward Councillors of Maner Nagar Panchayat and they were declared successful. Both the petitioners again contested the election for the post of Chief Councillor and Deputy Chief Councillor and both have been declared successful, accordingly, they started discharging their respective duties. It has been alleged that in the year 2019, a move was made for "No Confidence Motion" against the petitioners, but the majority of the Ward Councillors did not support the motion, ensued the rejection of motion. After completion of one year, they mustered the courage and made a second move for "No Confidence Motion" by allegedly serving a notice dated 14.07.2020 through the office of the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Maner vide letter no. 531 dated 15.07.2020 bearing the signatures of ten Ward Councillors being more than 1/3rd Ward Councillors, which is required under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter mentioned Bihar Municipal Act).

4. As per the petitioners, the husband of petitioner no.1 died in July, 2020, the copy of requisition was not served upon the petitioner no.1, on account of fact that it is a custom in her society that after the death of her husband, she was to stay at her parental house for one and quarter month. On account of death of her husband, her mother-in-law could not bear the shock and she had fallen seriously ill, on account of serious illness of her mother-inlaw, she had no alternative option but to come back to her in-laws house on 13.07.2020, but she was not attending the office. It has been asserted that requisition was sent by the office of Executive Officer, but the same could not be served upon her as she had to leave her house for the purpose of treatment of her mother-in-law and when she returned back on 22.07.2020, a copy of requisition was served upon her on 23.07.2020. In the requisition, charges have been mentioned that while discharging their duties, they do not follow the provisions of Bihar Municipal Act. It has further been alleged that they engaged themselves in changing, manipulating and fabricating the decision taken in the meeting and thereby they altered the decision for their own convenience. It has further been alleged that the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor were indulged in illegal act and misappropriated the public fund and the money spent in the Nagar Panchayat was converted for their own benefits. In the charges, it has further been alleged that they obstructed the development of Nagar Panchayat. A serious allegation has been made against the petitioners that they, being the Chief Councillors and Deputy Chief Councillor, were obtaining a contract of Maner Nagar Panchayat in the names of their family members and near relatives and the work done is very low quality and thereby they misappropriated the huge fund of Nagar Panchayat, Maner. It is stated that unfortunately, ailing mother-in-law of the petitioner no. 1 died on 24.07.2020 and her dead body was cremated on the next day and, as such, whole family was under deep shock on account of two deaths of her family member, even though, she was reeling under the deep shock, the petitioner no.1 continued to discharge her duty as per statutory provision. On receipt of

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