Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1280 (PAT)

Amarendra Kumar v. State of Bihar

2014-12-23

JYOTI SARAN

body2014
Jyoti Saran, J. – Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the State Election Commission and Mr. Sarvadeo Singh for the private respondents have appeared in the two writ petitions. 2. Whereas the petitioner in CWJC No. 10138 of 2014 happens to be the Chief Councillor of Nagar Parishad, District-Arwal, the petitioner in the other writ petition is the Deputy Chief Councillor of the same Nagar Parishad and in each of the two writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the ‘no confidence motion’ passed against them on 16.6.2014. 3. The contesting parties have appeared in the two writ petitions and hence with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petitions have been considered with a view to its final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 4. Considering that the issue raised is the same, I shall be referring to the pleadings and Annexures with reference to CWJC No. 10138 of 2014. 5. This matter was earlier considered on 3.7.2014 and although Mr. Manglam sought to question the no confidence motion passed on 16.6.2014 as against the two petitioners inter alia on grounds that it had been moved within one year of the earlier meeting which was held on 16.6.2013 and thus was in contravention to the second proviso to Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as well as on grounds that the notice convening special meeting dated 9.6.2014 issued by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad present at Annexure-5 is not accompanied with reasons / allegations as mandated under Rule 2(iv) of the Bihar Municipal No confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) but when the matter has been taken up for final consideration today, Mr. Manglam has chosen to restrict his argument to the invalidation of the proceedings on account of infraction of Rule 2(iv) of the Rules. The notice is placed at Annexure-5 to the writ petition and supports the submissions of the petitioners inasmuch as it does not contain any reasons / allegations as required under Rule 2(iv) of the Rules. 6. Although Mr. The notice is placed at Annexure-5 to the writ petition and supports the submissions of the petitioners inasmuch as it does not contain any reasons / allegations as required under Rule 2(iv) of the Rules. 6. Although Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents in the two writ petitions sought to question the argument on the anvil that for a lapse made by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad, the motion moved by the requisitionists cannot be faulted for it was beyond the power of these requisitionists to issue a notice of convening the special meeting and the arguments sound very genuine but considering the requirement of law where the notice in this regard is to be issued by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad, it cannot be upheld. This Court has been noticing in context of matters arising from Panchayat Raj Act that either due to ignorance of law or deliberately these Executive Officers are playing into the hands of one of the contesting factions and the present case related to the urban side of the local self government, the malady continues. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department would have to give a serious consideration on the issue so that only such officers who are conversant with the duties attached to the post and the requirements of law are posted to man these statutory functions. 7. Having observed as such and considering undisputed position that the notice convening special meeting issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Arwal dated 9.6.2014 as contained in Annexure-5 is in violation of the statutory requirements underlying Rule 2(iv) of the Rules, the same cannot be upheld and is set aside and as a consequence the no confidence motion passed on 16.6.2014 as against the two petitioners cannot be upheld and is set aside. The petitioners stand restored to the respective posts. 8. Since the period of one year has elapsed and there is no infirmity in the requisition filed by the requisitionists placed at Annexure-1, hence the petitioner in CWJC No. 10138 of 2014 in the capacity of the Chief Councilor shall proceed to fix the date of special meeting on or before 29.12.2014 and ensure the circulation of notice in this regard failing which the requisitionists shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter in the light of the provisions underlying Rule 2(iii) of the Rules. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad is put to notice that in case he continues with the statutory violations and fails in adhering to the statutory requirements of Rule 2(iv) while issuing notice convening special meeting as well as its circulation amongst the Ward Counillors, it would be treated to be a violation of the directions of this Court and he shall be hauled up for contempt of this Court’s direction. 9. The writ petitions are allowed with the observations / directions aforementioned.