JUDGMENT : CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J. Since the core issue involved in all these applications is identical, they have been heard together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order. 2. We have heard Mr. Shri Prakash Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these cases, Mr. Rajiv Roy, learned GP-1, Mr. Subash Prasad Singh, learned GA-3, Mr. Kinkar Kumar, learned SC-9 for the State of Bihar and Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh and Mr. Girish Pandey, learned counsel for the State Election Commission. 3. Petitioners of CWJC No. 17637 of 2021 claim to be duly elected Ward Councillors of Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir from Ward No. 18 and 5. They further claim to be the duly elected Chairperson of the said Nagar Panchayat. In exercise of power under Section 3(1)(a), 4, 5, 6, and 8 of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 dated 03.03.2021, the said Nagar Panchayayat Rajgir has been upgraded as Nagar Parishad, Rajgir. It is the petitioners’ case that election of Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir was held in the year 2017 and its first meeting was convened on 09.06.2017. It is their case that by virtue of Article 243-U read with Sections 16 and 35 of the Act, the term and tenure of elected office bearers of Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir should continue up to 09.06.2022. However, by erroneously applying Section 12(8) of the Act, the term and tenure of Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir is being shortened to 03.09.2021 i.e. upon completion of six months from the date of notification, by the respondents. 4. The petitioners in CWJC No. 18666 of 2021 claim to be elected Ward Councillors of Nagar Parishad, Motihari. They have challenged letter dated 29.09.2021, issued by the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar dated 29.09.2021, whereby a District Magistrate has been appointed as Administrator of upgraded Nagar Parishad, Motihari under the provision contained in Section 12(8) and 12(9) of the Act. 5. Similarly, CWJC No. 15782 of 2021 relates to upgradation of Nagar Parishad, Madhubani to Nagar Nigam by virtue of a similar notification dated 26.03.2021. 6. In all cases, the petitioners claim that they have a right to continue for a period of five years after the first meeting of the respective elected bodies, by virtue of Article 243-U of the Constitution of India read with Section 16 and 35 of the Act. 6. In all cases, the petitioners claim that they have a right to continue for a period of five years after the first meeting of the respective elected bodies, by virtue of Article 243-U of the Constitution of India read with Section 16 and 35 of the Act. It is their common case that they had a right to continue for five years on their election and, in no event, their term can be scuttled by putting into operation Section 12(8) of the Act. 7. The said issue has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 17.01.2022, passed in CWJC No. 17044 of 2021 (Anju Devi vs. The State of Bihar and others) and other analogous matters, of which both of us (Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Madhuresh Prasad JJ) are members. 8. In the light of the said decision rendered in the case of Anju Devi (supra), we do not find any merit in these applications, which are accordingly dismissed.