Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 155 (PAT)

Rabindra Choudhary v. State of Bihar

2012-01-25

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA, R.M.DOSHIT

body2012
ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the Mukhiyas of Gram Panchayat Ekma, Gram Panchayat Hansrajpur Gopali and Gram Panchayat Bharohopur to challenge the judgment and order dated 2nd September 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in above CWJC No. 13300 of 2011. 2. Under Notification dated 14th January 2010 issued under Section 6 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”), the State Government has reconstituted some seven Gram Panchayats to constitute Ekma Bazar Nagar Panchayat (Municipality). 3. Feeling aggrieved, certain residents of the villages challenged the said Notification dated 14th January 2010 in CWJC No. 6509 of 2010. Pending the said petition, the operation of the Notification dated 14th January 2010 was stayed. The petition came to be rejected on 12th May 2011. It appears that while the stay was operating and the Notification dated 14th January 2010 was not made effective, the election of the above-referred three Gram Panchayats were declared. In spite of vacation of the stay on 12th May 2011, the election process continued. The election of the appellants as Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayats was declared on 23rd May 2011 and 24th May 2011. Since the election, on 8th July 2011 the State Election Commission declared the election programme of the above-referred Ekma Bazar Municipality. After holding the due election, the election of the Councillors of the municipality was declared on 20th September 2011. Pursuant to the election of the municipality, the District Collector Saran at Chapra, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 12 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, denotified the above-referred three Gram Panchayats under his order dated 27th December 2011, published in the Government Gazette on 27th December 2011. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants, the elected Mukhiyas filed CWJC No. 13300 of 2011. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, this Appeal. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the appellants were duly elected as Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayats. They cannot be removed from the office before the expiry of their term. They cannot be removed unceremoniously as has been done by the District Collector by denotifying the Gram Panchayats. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the appellants were duly elected as Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayats. They cannot be removed from the office before the expiry of their term. They cannot be removed unceremoniously as has been done by the District Collector by denotifying the Gram Panchayats. The action of the District Collector is contrary to Article 243E of the Constitution of India. 6. The Appeal is contested by the State Government. 7. The word “Municipality” is defined under Section 2(66) of the Act of 2007 to mean “an institution of Self-Government constituted under section 12, read with Article 243Q of the Constitution of India, and includes a Municipal Corporation, a Municipal Council, and a Nagar Panchayat, referred to in section 13.” 8. Section 3 of the Act of 2007 empowers the State Government, inter alia, to make inquiry as it may deem fit in respect of any revenue area and to declare its intention to specify such area to be a larger urban area, or a medium urban area, or a transitional area by notification. Section 4 of the Act of 2007 empowers the State Government, inter alia, to declare its intention to constitute a municipal area. Section 6 of the Act of 2007 empowers the State Government to constitute any urban area, city, town or transitional area or any specified part thereof as a municipal area. 9. Section 12 of the Act of 2007 deals with Constitution of Municipality. Sub-section (8) thereof provides, “In a municipal area newly constituted, the local authority having jurisdiction over such area immediately before such area was constituted as a municipal area, shall continue to have jurisdiction and to perform its functions till such time, not exceeding six months from the date of the notification under section 6, as may be necessary for holding election.” 10. Thus, under the Act of 2007, once an area is declared to be a `Municipality’ within the meaning of Clause (66) of Section 2 of the Act of 2007, the local authority already in office cannot be continued for more than six months thereafter. The legislative intent in allowing the existing body to continue for not more than six months is apparent. Once an area is declared to be a Municipality, its Councillors are required to be elected. The legislative intent in allowing the existing body to continue for not more than six months is apparent. Once an area is declared to be a Municipality, its Councillors are required to be elected. Till such time the Councillors are elected and they start performing their duties in the manner prescribed under the Act of the 2007 and the Rules made thereunder, the functions of the municipality are required to be performed. Till the election is held and the elected body takes over, for the interregnum period, the existing body shall continue to manage the business of the newly constituted municipality. Once the election of the municipality is made, such body would automatically cease to exist. The affairs of the municipality then would be conducted by the newly elected municipality. 11. In view of the above-referred legal consequence, the appellants could not have continued in office once the election of the municipality was held and the results were declared on 20th September 2011. The denotification of the Gram Panchayats is a legal consequence of constitution of the municipality. 12. In our opinion, in the above-referred legal scenario, the appellants have ceased to hold the office on the date the election of the municipality was declared on 20th September 2011 and on the day on which such Municipality held its first meeting. The order of denotification of the Gram Panchayat made by the District Collector is consequential. The appellants cannot have a legitimate grievance against such denotification. 13. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition. 14. No case for interference is made out. 15. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.