ORDER : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi for the Gaya Municipal Corporation and Mr. Y.V. Giri learned Senior counsel for the private respondents are in attendance. 2. The writ petition was filed questioning the requisition contained in letter No. 889 dated 10.6.2014 placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition as well as the notice circulated by the Municipal Commissioner on 10.6.2014 intimating the date of special meeting convened for considering the no confidence motion so moved against the petitioner vide Annexure-1 which was fixed on 20.6.2014 and a copy whereof is placed at Annexure- 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner was in custody having been made accused in a case arising from Kotwali P.S. Case No. 16 of 2014 and since he was not in a position to participate in the special meeting so fixed that the writ petition was filed. 3. While the matter was pending consideration the special meeting was held on 20.6.2014 and the motion was passed against the petitioner, a copy whereof has been impugned at Annexure-3 to I.A.No.4461 of 2014 filed for questioning the no confidence motion so passed against the petitioner in the meanwhile. The petitioner seeks permission to question the motion which has been passed during the pendency of the proceedings and since it is an outcome of the requisition which is put to challenge in the writ proceedings, he is permitted to question the same in the present proceeding. I.A.No.4461 of 2014 is thus allowed. 4. The motion having been passed against the petitioner, the State Election Commission vide letter dated 30.6.2014 required the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Municipality) to hold election for electing a new Deputy Councillor on 15.7.2014 and which was impugned at Annexure-6 of I.A.No.4898 of 2014. The matter was considered on 11.7.2014 and when this Court while issuing notice to the non appearing respondents, stayed the operation of the letter of the Election Commission dated 30.6.2014. 5. The petitioner has also filed I.A. No. 5842 of 2014 seeking permission of the Court to permit him to discharge the duty of the Deputy Mayor, however considering that the no confidence motion has been passed against him which is put to challenge in this writ petition, the prayer is misconceived and I.A. No. 5842 of 2014 is accordingly disposed of. 6. 6. The private respondents have filed counter affidavit as well as I.A.No.6229 of 2014 praying for vacating the interim order passed on 11.7.2014 whereunder the election was stayed but considering that the parties are in attendance and the pleadings are complete, the matter itself has been taken up for consideration and though listed under the heading For Orders On Petition, but with the consent of the parties the writ petition itself along with pending interlocutory applications have been heard with a view to their final disposal. 7. Mr. Binod Kumar Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has questioned the motion relying upon the provisions of Rule 2(v) of the Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which according to the learned counsel requires the presence of the Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor as the case may be when the no confidence motion is moved and the allegations are read over, to enable him to participate in the proceedings and to afford him with opportunity to defend himself. 8. It is the argument of Mr. Singh that since the petitioner was in custody, it is obvious that he could not defend himself and the no confidence motion was passed in his absence, cannot be upheld as it does not satisfy the Rule 2(v) of the rules which have been framed under Section 25(4) and Section 419 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 9. Mr. Giri learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the requisitionists and Mr. Priyadarshi appearing on behalf of the Gaya Municipal Corporation have contested such arguments of Mr. Singh. According to Mr. Giri, since the petitioner was in custody and his prayer for bail to participate in the special meeting was rejected by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, III, Patna, it was sufficient opportunity afforded to him and his non participation would not invalidate the meeting, because the non participation is entirely attributable to the petitioner. 10. Mr. According to Mr. Giri, since the petitioner was in custody and his prayer for bail to participate in the special meeting was rejected by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, III, Patna, it was sufficient opportunity afforded to him and his non participation would not invalidate the meeting, because the non participation is entirely attributable to the petitioner. 10. Mr. Giri learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the notice issued to the petitioner which was served to him through the Jail Superintendent and copies whereof have been enclosed in the counter affidavit, to submit that once the notice of special meeting has been served on the petitioner, it was for the petitioner to take possible steps for participating in the special meeting and if for any reason he has been precluded from participating in the special meeting, it cannot draw in his favour nor would have any adverse impact on the meeting. According to Mr. Giri the relevant rule merely provides that an opportunity be given and which was given to the petitioner by the service of notice. 11. According to Mr. Giri, Rule 2(v) of the rules has to be interpreted as per the circumstances existing and in the peculiar circumstances where a person is suffering custody, it is obvious that he cannot participate in the meeting and for the said reason the work of the municipality cannot suffer. He thus submits that in the peculiar circumstances that was existing in the present case, no fault can be found in the no confidence motion. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. 13. The only issue that merits consideration in the present case is whether Rule 2(v) of the Rules stands satisfied in the present case. Rule 2(v) of the Rules reads as follows: “2(v) As soon as the meeting, called for, commences, the presiding member at the meeting shall read out the motion on which the meeting has been called, before the members present and declare it open for discussion. During discussion, opportunity shall be given to the Chief Councillor/ Deputy Chief Councillor against whom no confidence motion is moved, to defend himself. The motion shall be put to vote by the presiding member by secret ballot on the same day after discussion and after counting result shall be declared.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. During discussion, opportunity shall be given to the Chief Councillor/ Deputy Chief Councillor against whom no confidence motion is moved, to defend himself. The motion shall be put to vote by the presiding member by secret ballot on the same day after discussion and after counting result shall be declared.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. The provision is self eloquent and provides that no sooner the meeting commences, that the presiding member has to read out the motion in the presence of the Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor against whom the no confidence motion is moved and an opportunity be given to them to defend themselves. The opportunity so afforded to the incumbent under the statute is not a formality rather is with a purpose and object to allow him to defend himself. Thus the argument of Mr. Giri that the service of notice would satisfy the requirement of law and would constitute opportunity is not correct and is rejected. 15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was in custody when the motion was moved on 20.6.2014. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did make his endeavour for participating in the meeting as is reflected from the order of the Sessions Judge, a copy whereof is placed at Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit. In such circumstance the petitioner cannot be deprived of statutory right available to him. 16. The argument of Mr. Giri regarding peculiar circumstances of incarceration of the petitioner, could have merited consideration if the petitioner would have been facing a sentence of conviction and in such circumstances perhaps his non participation could be a matter of discussion. The situation is not such and there was no laches on the part of the petitioner to seek the permission of the Court to participate in the meeting except that his request was not accepted. The petitioner has been acquitted on 6.8.2014 of the charges so levelled against him. In the circumstances prevailing, where the request of the petitioner was not accepted by the Court while considering his bail application for enabling him to participate in the special meeting which was rejected on 19.6.2014 with the special meeting being held on very next date i.e. 20.6.2014, no laches can be attributed on the petitioner. 17. In the circumstances prevailing, where the request of the petitioner was not accepted by the Court while considering his bail application for enabling him to participate in the special meeting which was rejected on 19.6.2014 with the special meeting being held on very next date i.e. 20.6.2014, no laches can be attributed on the petitioner. 17. It is well settled that act of Court shall prejudice none and the bail application of the petitioner being rejected by the Court below thus disabling him from participating in the special meeting, the circumstance cannot go adverse to him. 18. In my opinion the motion having been held in the absence of the petitioner with only the requisition being served upon him, it does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 2(v) of the rules. Since it is not a case where the incumbent is undergoing a sentence after conviction which disabled him from participating in the meeting, this Court does not feel the necessity to record its opinion on the issue and the matter is left open for discussion in an appropriate case. In so far as the present case is concerned this Court is under no confusion that Rule 2(v) of the rules has not been satisfied and by reason of incarceration, the petitioner has been disabled from participating in the special meeting and has lost his opportunity to defend himself in the no confidence motion which took place on 20.6.2014. 19. For the reasons aforementioned, I am not persuaded to uphold the special meeting held on 20.6.2014 as impugned at Annexure-3 of the interlocutory application and as a result the no confidence motion passed in the special meeting held on 20.6.2014 is set aside. 20. Since this Court finds no infirmity with the requisition, the requisitionists would be at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 21. The writ petition is allowed with the direction aforementioned. Interlocutory applications stands disposed of.