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) 380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and MADHURESH PRASAD, JJ.
(22.6.2022)
CWJC No.4361 of 2022
Gupteshwar Prasad : Petitioner
Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. : Respondents

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s S.B.K. Mangalam, Awnish Kumar.
For the State : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha.
For the SEC : Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh.
For Nagar Parishad : Mr. Vijay Shankar Upadhyay.

Headnote:

Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 – Section 25(4) r/w Bihar Municipal No – Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 – Rule 2(iv) – Petitioner, a ward councillor of Nagar Parishad seeking quashing of order of SEC declining to hold a fresh election of Chief Councillor – petitioner claims, resolution of No confidence motion has been carried out against the Chief Councillor which has not been challenged by the Chief Councillor – under statutory requirements prescribed under Section 25 (4) of the Act, for removal of Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor, the resolution of no confidence motion must have been carried at a special meeting to be called for this purpose in the manner prescribled and the procedure for conduct of business in the special meeting should be valid as may be prescribed – these requirements are mandatory in nature – under Rule 2(iv) of the 2010 Rules, framed u/ss. 25(4) & 419 of the Act, the notice issued for considering no confidence motion against the Chief Councillor / Deputy Chief Councillor shall clearly contain the reasons/allegation on which the no confidence motion is to be brought – in the present case, the notice dated 22.07.2021 on which the special meeting said to have been held on 27.07.2021 does not contain any reasons/allegations as required under Rule 2(iv) of the Rules – the illegality in holding of a meeting convened in defiance of the provision under Rule 2(iv) of the Rules is incurable – the notice convening special meeting held on 27.07.2021 of the Ward Councillors cannot be treated to be a meeting held for bringing about a No confidence motion and as such no resolution could have been passed in the said meeting for removal of respondent No. 9 on the basis of No confidence Motion – Writ application dismissed. (Paras 35, 36, 37, 44 and 48)

2009 (2) PLJR 557, 2009 (4) PLJR 225, 2010 (2) PLJC 389, CWJC No. 898/2022 D/- 09.03.2022 – Referred.

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–The petitioner claims to be a Ward Councillor of Ward No. 3 of Nagar Parishad, Bikramganj in the district of Rohtas. It is his case that though one Rub Nawaz Khan (added as respondent No. 9), who was elected as the Chief Councillor of the said Nagar Parishad, stands removed with a resolution of No Confidence Motion carried out against him in accordance with the provisions under Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007(for short ‘the Act’) read with Bihar Municipal No- Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 (for short ‘the Rules’), the State Election Commission, Bihar (for short ‘the SEC’) has declined the request made by the Ward Councillors of the said Nagar Parishad for holding a fresh election for the said post of Chief Councillor, by an order dated 17.02.2022.

2. In the present writ application, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the aforesaid order dated 17.02.2022, passed by the SEC. The petitioner is seeking a declaration from this Court that since the proceeding of the special meeting held on 27.07.2021 containing resolution of carrying No Confidence Motion against the said respondent No. 9 has not been challenged by him on any ground and it is not his case that the special meeting was convened without service of memo of charge/ allegations against the Ward Councillors, the SEC lacks jurisdiction to refuse the request for holding election to the post which fell vacant, consequent upon passing of No Confidence Motion, in violation of the provision under Rule 2(ix) of the Rules. In addition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the District Magistrate, Rohtas to fix a date of meeting of the elected Ward Councillors, in exercise of power under Rule 93 of the Bihar Municipal Election Rules, 2007 for election to the vacant post of Chief Councillor which is vacant since 27.07.2021.

3. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 it transpires that the SEC, upon considering the materials before it, has arrived at a conclusion that the No Confidence Motion against the Chief Councillor cannot be said to have been validly brought in accordance with the statutory provision, rather the same was in breach of statutory prescription under Rule 2(iv) of the Rules, and, therefore, the SEC could not treat the post of Chief Councillor vacant, requiring the SEC to hold election for the said post. The SEC, in its order dated 17.02.2022, has further recorded that unless a special meeting for No Confidence Motion was convened afresh and a resolution of No Confidence Motion was passed in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure, no election could be notified by the SEC, treating the post of Chief Councillor as vacant.

4. It is noted at this stage, that the said reasoned order of the SEC dated 17.02.2022 has been passed in the light of an order of this Court dated 22.12.2021, passed in CWJC No. 17990 of 2021.

5. It is noteworthy at this juncture that the Municipal Administration Directorate of the Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar has issued letter No. 1535 dated 25.03.2022, addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Bikramganj recording therein that the Chief Councillor of Nagar Parishad shall function till a fresh No Confidence Motion is brought and carried against him in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The State Government has taken note of the aforesaid findings recorded by the SEC on the point of removal of the Chief Councillor after passing of resolution of No Confidence Motion as is being claimed in the present writ application. The said order dated 25.03.2022 is sought to be challenged in the present writ application by filing I.A. No. 01 of 2022.

6. Considering the fact that the said letter dated 1535 dated 25.03.2022, issued by the Municipal Administration Directorate of the Bihar Government, is integrally connected with the issue involved in the present writ application, I.A. No. 01 of 2022 is allowed. The relief sought in the main writ ap












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