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

2022 Supreme(Pat) 13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, MADHURESH PRASAD, JJ.
Manish Kumar @ Manish Kumar Singh, Son of Late Akhilesh Sharan Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15782, 17637, 18666 of 2021
Decided on : 17-01-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, Mr. Gopal Jha, Mr. Santosh Bharti, Ms. Anu Priyadarshi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajiv Roy, Mr. Suresh Kumar, Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate

The interpretation of Article 243-U of the Constitution of India read with Sections 16 and 35 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, and the application of Section 12(8) in determining the tenure of elected office bearers.

Headnote:

Municipal Act - Upgradation of Nagar Panchayat - Interpretation of Article 243-U and Sections 12(8), 16, and 35 of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, elected Ward Councillors of Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir, Nagar Parishad, Motihari, and Nagar Parishad, Madhubani, challenged the shortening of their tenure due to the upgradation of their respective bodies under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.

Finding of the Court:

The court, based on a previous Division Bench decision, dismissed the applications, stating that the petitioners' claim to continue for five years after the first meeting of the elected bodies was not supported by the interpretation of relevant provisions.

Issues: The core issue was the interpretation of Article 243-U of the Constitution of India read with Sections 16 and 35 of the Act, and the application of Section 12(8) in shortening the tenure of the elected office bearers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the previous decision in Anju Devi vs. The State of Bihar and others, which established the interpretation of the relevant provisions and influenced the court's decision in the present case.

Final Decision: The applications were dismissed by the court, citing the lack of merit based on the previous decision's interpretation of the legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

Since the core issue involved in all these applications is identical, they have been heard together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order.

2. We have heard Mr. Shri Prakash Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these cases, Mr. Rajiv Roy, learned GP-1, Mr. Subash Prasad Singh, learned GA-3, Mr. Kinkar Kumar, learned SC-9 for the State of Bihar and Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh and Mr. Girish Pandey, learned counsel for the State Election Commission.

3. Petitioners of CWJC No. 17637 of 2021 claim to be duly elected Ward Councillors of Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir from Ward No. 18 and 5. They further claim to be the duly elected Chairperson of the said Nagar Panchayat. In exercise of power under Section 3(1)(a), 4, 5, 6, and 8 of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 dated 03.03.2021, the said Nagar Panchayayat Rajgir has been upgraded as Nagar Parishad, Rajgir. It is the petitioners’ case that election of Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir was held in the year 2017 and its first meeting was convened on 09.06.2017. It is their case that by virtue of Article 243-U read with Sections 16 and 35 of the Act, the term and tenure of elected office bearers of Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir should continue up to 09.06.2022. However, by erroneously applying Section 12(8) of the Act, the term and tenure of Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir is being shortened to 03.09.2021 i.e. upon completion of six months from the date of notification, by the respondents.

4. The petitioners in CWJC No. 18666 of 2021 claim to be elected Ward Councillors of Nagar Parishad, Motihari. They have challenged letter dated 29.09.2021, issued by the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar dated 29.09.2021, whereby a District Magistrate has been appointed as Administrator of upgraded Nagar Parishad, Motihari under the provision contained in Section 12(8) and 12(9) of the Act.

5. Similarly, CWJC No. 15782 of 2021 relates to upgradation of Nagar Parishad, Madhubani to Nagar Nigam by virtue of a similar notification dated 26.03.2021.

6. In all cases, the petitioners claim that they have a right to continue for a period of five years after the first meeting of the respective elected bodies, by virtue of Article 243-U of the Constitution of India read with Section 16 and 35 of the Act. It is their common case that they had a right to continue for five years on their election and, in no event, their term can be scuttled by putting into operation Section 12(8) of the Act.

7. The said issue has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 17.01.2022, passed in CWJC No. 17044 of 2021 (Anju Devi vs. The State of Bihar and others) and other analogous matters, of which both of us (Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Madhuresh Prasad JJ) are members.

8. In the light of the said decision rendered in the case of Anju Devi (supra), we do not find any merit in these applications, which are accordingly dismissed.

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