JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

1. Sub-Section (4) of Section 25 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') prescribes for removal from office of a Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor of a Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council/Nagar Parishad by a resolution carried by a majority of whole number of councillors at a special meeting, to be called for the said purpose 'in the manner prescribed' upon a requisition made in writing by not less than one-third of the total number of councillors. It further states that the procedure for conduct of business in the special meeting shall be such as may be prescribed. The first proviso to Sub-Section (4) of Section 27 states that a no-confidence motion shall not be brought against a Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor within a period of two years of taking over the charge of post.

2. Section 419 of the Act confers upon the State Government power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act.

3. The Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') have been framed by the State of Bihar in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 25(4) and 419 of the Act, which lays down the process for bringing a motion of no confidence under Section 25(4) of the Act. The interpretation of Sub-Rule (i) and (iii) of Rule 2 is at the core of the controversy which the present writ application involves and, therefore, they are being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"(i) To remove the Chief Councillor/the Deputy Chief Councillor, a special meeting of the elected Councillors shall be called for. Such special meeting shall be requisitioned and signed by not less than one third of the total numbers of the elected Councillors which shall be given to the Chief Councillor. Notice shall be issued by the Chief Councillor for the special meeting of the Urban Local Body within seven days from receipt of requisition and the meeting shall be convened within fifteen days of the date of issuance of the notice.

xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

(iii) In case the notice not being issued by the Chief Councillor within the stipulated date or not convening the meeting within stipulated time, the special meeting shall be called by the requisitionists as per the provision of Section-48(3) of the Municipal Act, 2007 and the notice for it shall be issued by the Chief Municipal Officer."

4. On plain reading of Sub-Rule (i) of Rule 2, it can be easily noticed that it stipulates calling for a special meeting of elected councillors to remove a Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor to be requisitioned and signed by not less than one-third of the total number of the elected councillors, which is to be given to the chief councillor whereafter the chief councillor is obligated to issue a notice for special meeting within seven days from receipt of requisition to be convened within fifteen days of the date of issuance of the notice. In the event, the chief councillor refuses or fails, to issue notice within the stipulated date or to convene meeting within the stipulated time, the special meeting can be called by the requisitionists in accordance with Section 48(3) of the Act.

5. The admitted facts of the present case are that the petitioner was elected as the chief councillor of Nagar Parishad, Hilsa on 16.09.2016 and was subsequently removed on a motion of no confidence brought against her. She was again elected as chief councillor on 15.10.2018. She was communicated by a letter dated 16.10.2020 issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Hilsa that 15 ward councillors had given in writing, expressing their no confidence in the petitioner as chief councillor and had requested for convening a special meeting. A copy of the requisition made by the ward councillors was admittedly shown enclosed with the said letter dated 16.10.2020, which was received by the petitioner on 20.10.2020. Though it was within the petitioner's knowledge that the ward councill