ORDER Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, counsel for some of the requisitionists and Mr. Rabindra Priyadarshi for the Municipal Corporation. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution dated 10.07.2014 whereby the special meeting held for considering the motion of no confidence, has been adjourned to 23.07.2014 for want of quorum. Copy of the resolution is placed at Annexure-6. 3. Mr. Manglam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the statutory provisions underlying Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act?) which provides for holding a special meeting to consider a motion of no confidence in the manner prescribed. Mr. Manglam next has referred to the Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under Section 25(4) and 419 of the Act and with reference to Rule 2(v) he submits that there is no room for any adjournment for want of quorum and that once a date of special meeting has been held then even if the quorum is not complete, the meeting cannot be adjourned and has to be decided on the basis of the Councillors present and voting. He thus submits that since the provisions of Section 25(4) of the Act provides that the special meeting for considering a no confidence motion is to be held in the manner prescribed and Rule 2(v) framed thereunder provides that a meeting held in this regard has to conclude on the same day after discussion and holding secret ballot, the resolution dated 10.7.2014 adjourning the special meeting to 23.7.2014 is contrary to statutory provisions. As regarding the statutory provisions underlying Section 50 of the Act providing for quorum for transaction of business at a meeting of Municipality, learned counsel has submitted that the said provision is relatable to meeting held under Section 48 and not to special meeting held in pursuance of Section 25(4) of the Act. He submits that where the Act requires the meeting to be held in the prescribed manner and the manner prescribed does not refer to maintenance of a quorum, the special meeting could not have been adjourned. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. The argument advanced by Mr. He submits that where the Act requires the meeting to be held in the prescribed manner and the manner prescribed does not refer to maintenance of a quorum, the special meeting could not have been adjourned. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. The argument advanced by Mr. Manglam is fallacious. Sub-rule 2(vi) of the Rules specifically provides that quorum of the special meeting for considering a no confidence motion should be as per the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. Section 50 of the Act runs as under: “50. Quorum for transaction of business at a meeting of municipality and method of deciding questions.-(1) The quorum necessary for the transaction of business at a meeting of the Municipality shall be 1[one-third] of the total number of meeting of Councillors. (2) If at any time during a meeting of the Municipality there is no quorum, it shall be the duty of the person presiding over such meeting either to adjourn the meeting or to suspend the meeting until there is a quorum. (3) Where a meeting has been adjourned under sub-section (2) 2[The presiding authority shall fix date, time and place for the same as he shall think convenient which shall not be earlier than three days from the date of adjournment. A notice of adjournment exhibited in the municipal office on the day on which the meeting is adjourned shall be sufficient notice of the subsequent meeting.]” the business which would have been brought before such meeting shall be brought before, and may be transacted at, the adjourned meeting, and no quorum shall be necessary for such adjourned meeting. (4) All matters required to be decided at a meeting of the Municipality shall, save as otherwise provided in this Act, be determined by a majority of votes of the Councillors present and voting. (5) The voting shall be by show of hands, provided that the Municipality may, subject to such regulations as may be made by it, resolve that any question, or class of questions, shall be decided by secret ballot. (5) The voting shall be by show of hands, provided that the Municipality may, subject to such regulations as may be made by it, resolve that any question, or class of questions, shall be decided by secret ballot. (6) At any meeting of the Municipality, where a poll is taken on a resolution before it, the votes of all the Councillors present, who desire to vote shall be taken under the direction of the presiding officer of such meeting, who shall declare such resolution to have been carried or lost, as the case may be, in accordance with the result of such poll. (7) At any meeting of the Municipality, unless a poll is demanded by at least one-tenth of the Councillors present, a declaration by the presiding officer of such meeting has a resolution has been carried or lost in such meeting, and an entry to that effect in the minutes of the proceedings of such meeting shall, for the purposes of this Act, be conclusive evidence of the fact that such resolution has been carried or lost, as the case may be.” 7. In view of the statutory provisions referred to above there is absolutely no illegality in the resolution adjourning the special meeting for want of quorum. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.