Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 683 (PAT)

Asha Devi v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-13

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the communication dated 16th of July, 2003 of the Chief Executive Officer of the Gaya Municipal Corporation, whereby in purported exercise of its power under Section 25(2) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act he has convened the meeting of the Ward Councillors of the Gaya Municipal Corporation on 24.7.2003 at 11 A.M. to elect members of the Standing Committee and the Consultative Committee. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the notification dated 24th of July, 2003 (Annexure-2) whereby the Standing Committee and Consultative Committee have been constituted. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner is an elected Ward Councillor of the Gaya Municipal Corporation for which the election was held on 28th of April, 2002. The Chief Executive Officer of the Gaya Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) by letter dated 29th of August, 2002 convened the meeting of Ward Councillors for electing the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor. In the said meeting petitioner was elected as the Mayor of the Corporation. According to the petitioner as the Chief Executive Officer did not call the meeting for electing the members of the Standing Committee and the Consultative Committee, by letter dated 16.9.2002 (Annexure-4), he directed the Chief Executive Officer to convene the meeting of the Councillors on 28.9.2002 for that purpose. It seems that some of the Councillors wrote to the Chief Executive Officer that in election to the Standing Committee and Consultative Committee, Mayor has no role to play and accordingly they requested to convene a special meeting under Section 27(2) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. The Chief Executive Officer by letter dated 29th of September, 2002 (Annexure-7), as directed by the Mayor, fixed 28.9.2002 as the date of meeting for electing the members of the Standing Committee and the Consultative Committee. Thereafter by letter dated 24th of September, 2002 (Annexure-9), the Chief Executive Officer stayed the said meeting but later on another notice dated 4th of October, 2002 (Annexure-10) was issued by him communicating the decision of the Mayor to hold the meeting on 19.10.2002 for electing the members of the Standing Committee and the Consultative Committee. Thereafter by letter dated 24th of September, 2002 (Annexure-9), the Chief Executive Officer stayed the said meeting but later on another notice dated 4th of October, 2002 (Annexure-10) was issued by him communicating the decision of the Mayor to hold the meeting on 19.10.2002 for electing the members of the Standing Committee and the Consultative Committee. It seems that the matter was brought to the notice of the State Government in the Urban Development Department, which sought opinion of the Law Department and" in the light thereof the State Government by its letter dated 9th of June, 2003 (Annexure-11) addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation advised the later to act in accordance with the advice of the Law Department. In pursuance of the said opinion the Chief Executive Officer had issued the impugned notice dated 16th of July, 2003 (Annexure-1) convening the meeting of the Councillors to elect the members of the Standing Committee and the Consultative Committee on 24.7.2003. The meeting so directed was held in which members of the Standing Committee and Consultative Committee were elected and their names were notified by the Chief Executive Officer by the impugned notification dated 24.7.2003. 3. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the tioner contends that the first meeting of the 1 Corporation was convened on 7th of September, 2002 and as such any other meeting of whatever nature has to be convened either by the Mayor or in his incapacity by the Deputy Mayor. In this connection Mr. Singh has referred to Sections 26 and 27 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. Section 25 of the Act, inter alia, provides for the first meeting of the Councillors after the general election. Same reads as follows: "25. First meeting after general election. (1) The Chief Executive Officer shall, as soon as may be after every general election, call a meeting of the elected and appointed Councillors for the purpose of selecting Councillors as required by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 8 and all provisions contained in this Chapter shall, regarding meetings of the Corporation, as far as may be, apply in respect of the said meeting. (2) The Chief Executive Officer shall call the first meeting of the Corporation as soon as the election, appointment and selection of Councillors is notified, to elect the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the Standing Committee and the Consultative Committees and transact any other business. (3) The members present at a meeting held under this section shall choose one of their member to preside." 4. From a plain reading of Section 25(2) of the Act, it is evident that the Chief Executive Officer is required to call the first meeting of the Corporation to elect the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, the Standing Committee and the Consultative Committee. In fact such a meeting was convened by the Chief Executive Officer but undisputedly in the said meeting election to the Standing Committee and Consultative Committee were not held. The authority to call the petimeeting for electing the members of the Standing Committee and the Consultative Committee having conferred on the Chief Executive Officer, in my opinion, whenever the business to elect the members of Standing Committee and the Consultative Committee is to be transacted, the meeting has to be called by the Chief Executive Officer. 5. In the present case the meeting so called by the Chief Executive Officer either did not have the agenda to elect the members of the Standing Committee and the Consultative Committee or for any reason, election to the Standing Committee or the Consultative Committee or the Corporation was not held. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the meeting convened by the Chief Executive Officer for election of the Standing Committee and the Consultative Committee cannot be said to be illegal and consequently the election held on that date cannot be said to be bad in law. 6. I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed in limine.