IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12252 of 2009 RITA SINHAW/O SRI SURESH CHANDRA SINHA, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.5, MOHALLA- SANTOSHI MAA PATH, P.O. AND P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. Versus 1.THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SONE BHAWAN, BEER CHAND PATEL MARG, R- BLOCK,PATNA,THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. 2.The STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER,BIHAR, PATNA OF THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SONE BHAWAN, BEER CHAND PATEL MARG, R- BLOCK,PATNA. 3.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER(NAGAR PARISHAD), ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 4. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PARISHAD, SASARAM, P.O. AND P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 5. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHY, R/M. KURAICH, MAHAVIR ASTHAN WARD NO.5, P.O. AND P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. with CWJC No.10881 of 2009 SHASHI PANDEY W/O KAMLAKANT PANDEY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- COMPANY SARAI, P.S.SASARAM TOWN,DISTRICT,SASARAM, ROHTAS. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, TRHOUGH ITS SECRETARY, BIHAR,PATNA. 3.THE COMMISSIONER, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SASARAM NAGAR PARISHAD, SASARAM. 5. SRI HARI NARAYAN SINGH SON OF NOT KNOWN, R/O RAM JANKI MARKET, G.T. ROAD, SASARAM, ROHTAS, CHAIRMAN, RAJPUT MAHASABHA, SASARAM, ROHTAS. with CWJC No.11423 of 2009 SMT.NAZIA BEGUM W/O MOHAMMAD ALI, R/WARD NO.29, MOHALLA- Quit Eexit Exit 2 ZAKKI SHAHEED, P.O. & P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT- RROHTAS. Versus 1.THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SONE BHAWAN, BEER CHAND PATEL MARG, R.-BLOCK, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. 2.THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA OF THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SONE BHAWAN, BEER CHAND PATEL MARG, R- BLOCK, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER ( NAGAR PARISHAD), ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 4.EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PARISHAD, SASARAM, P.O. & P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT – ROHTAS. 5. HASNAIN AKHTAR SON OF LATE MD. ZAHOOR, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.29, MOHALLA- ZAKKI SHAHEED, P.O.& P.S. SASARAM,DISTRICT- ROHTAS. with CWJC No.11882 of 2009 JULEBA BEGUM W/O AJAJ ASGHAR, R/M- MANDAI, P.S. SASARAM, TOWN DISTRICT- SASARAM, ROHTAS. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR. 2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE COMMISSIONER, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SASARAM NAGAR PARISHAD, SASARAM. 5. SRI MD. HANIF S/O LATE GULAM RASUL, R/M.- SAHJUA, P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT – ROHTAS. with CWJC No.11924 of 2009 Quit Eexit Exit 3 ANITA AGRAWAL W/O SHRI RAJU KUMAR AGRAWAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- MAHAJAN TOLI, P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT – ROHTAS. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBANDEVELOPMENT HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAQR, PATNA. 2.THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BIHAR,PATNA. 3.THE COMMISSIONER, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SASARAM NAGAR PARISHAD, SASARAM. 5. UDAY CHAND PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAMD SINGH RAM, RESIDENT OF JANI BAZAR, P.S.SASARAM, DISTRICT- ROHTAS.. ------- For the petitioners: . Mr.Sanjay Kumar @ Manu, Advocate. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. Mr.Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate. Mr.Raju Giri, Advocate. Mr.Basant Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Adv. For the Election Commission: Mr.R.S.Pradhan Mr.S.Nikesh (in all cases). For the Sasaram Municipality: Mr.R.C.Sinha, Advocate(in all cases). For respondent no.5 : Mr.S.B.K.Mangalam, Advocate (in all Cases.) 3 11.2.2010 By all these five writ applications the five writ petitioners have challenged their removal from the membership of the Sasaram Nagar Prishad by the State Government in terms of Section 18(1) (n) and 18(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act. While adjourning the matter for consideration by interim order passed the operation of the impugned orders were stayed by this Court. In all the five writ Quit Eexit Exit 4 petitions respondent no.5 is the private respondent at whose instance these impugned orders were passed. Sri B.K. Mangalam has appeared for these respondents no.5 in each of the writ petitions and on their behalf applications have been filed for vacating the stay. Heard the parties and with their consent, in my view, the applications are being disposed of at this stage itself. In each of the writ petitions petitioners have made similar grievance as against their removal. Apart from urging that they did not have clear 82 hours notice of meeting they have also urged that some of the meetings they had made applications to the Nagar Parishad through the Chairman for being exempted. But no orders were passed. They attended meeting subsequently without any objection from any one. But when they became party to requisition of a special meeting to be called for considering no-confidence motion against the Chairman much subsequently, the issue of disqualification was taken up before the State Election Commission which then without appreciating the facts disqualified the petitioners. Mr. Mangalam who as noticed above appearing for respondent no.5 in each of the cases at whose instance the disqualification order was passed after considering the matter could not support the order with reference to Section 18(1) (n) of the Act. He requested the Court that the Court should examine the conduct of the petitioners in terms of Section 18(1) (L) of the Act instead as he could not support the orders under Section 18(1) (n) of the Act. Quit Eexit Exit 5 In my view the action has been taken against the petitioners exclusively with reference to Section 18(1) (n) and if that action cannot be supported then the impugned orders of the Election Commission must go sand cannot be sustained. In my view the order is specifically with reference to Section 18(1) (n) of the Act. That being so , the impugned order is set aside and it is held that the petitioner would be deemed to be continuing as Member not subject to disqualification as contemplated under section 18(1)(n) of the Act. The writ applications are, thus, disposed of. Anil.kr.sinha (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)