IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7512 of 2009 1) Md. Muslim, son of Sri Pir Mohammad, village Anwarpur Chowk, PS Town Hajipur, Dist. Vaishali. 2) Manish Kumar Mishra, son of Sri Chandra Kishore Mishra, Mohalla Hella Bazar, PS Town, Dist. Vaishali – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3) The Collector, Vaishali. 4) Nagar Parishad, Hajipur through the Chief Executive Officer, Hajipur, Vaishali 5) Smt.Rama Nishad, Chief Councilor, Nagar Parishad, Hajipur, Dist. Vaishali – Respondents. 4 25.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings held by the Hajipur Nagar Parishad on16.6.2009 when they declared that no confidence motion brought against the Chief Councilor had failed. Voting in the said meeting took place on 16.6.2009 when twenty two Councilors were present. Eighteen voted in favour of the no confidence motion whereas one voted against the no confidence motion. The total strength of the Councilors is thirty nine. In view of sub-section (4) of section 25 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act the meeting was held to have failed. The provisions of sub-section (4) reads as follows : “(4) The Chief Councilor / Deputy Chief Councilor may be removed from office by a resolution carried by a majority of the whole number of Councilors holding office for the time being at a special meeting to be called for this purpose in the manner prescribed, upon a requisition made in writing by not less than one-third of the total number of Councilors, and the procedure for the conduct of business in the special meeting shall be such as may be prescribed. 2 “Provided that a no confidence motion shall not be brought against the Chief Councilor / Deputy Chief Councilor within a period of two years of taking over the charge of the post: “Provided further that a no confidence motion shall not be brought again within one year of the first no confidence motion. “Provided further also that no confidence motion shall not be brought within a residual period of six months of the Municipality.” The provisions, therefore, clearly indicate that the resolution has to be carried out by a majority of the number of councilors holding office at the time when the special meeting is convened. Apparently the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 25 was not complied with and, thus, it was rightly held that the meeting had failed. Counsel for the petitioners contends that in fact there was no meeting in the eye of law because of the provisions of per Annexure 4 which states that if there is a no confidence motion against the Chairman, then the Vice Chairman has to preside over the said meeting and if there is a no confidence motion against the Chairman, as well as the Vice Chairman, then the District Magistrate or the delegated authority has to preside over the said meeting. It is submitted that since there was no meeting in the eye of law as the meeting was presided over by the councilor of Ward No. 17, this court should direct for holding a fresh meeting. In the opinion of this court once a meeting has failed, then the persons aggrieved can move for holding a fresh meeting after bringing a motion of no confidence against the Chairman or 3 the Councilor by 1/3rd of the members of the Nagar Parishad. In the circumstances, this court cannot direct that a fresh meeting should be held sue moto with respect to the no confidence motion of 11.6.09. This writ petition is, thus, disposed of. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)