IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 11505 of 2009 Mohammad Akhtar Khan, son of Amanat Khan, resident of Mohalla - Mahua, Ward No 17, Piro, P S – Piro, District – Bhojpur- Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna 2 The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Bihar, Patna 3 The District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara 4 The State Election Commission through its Commissioner, Bihar, Patna 5 The State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna 6 The Secretary, State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna 7 The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Piro, Bhojpur 8 Umesh Ram, son of Kalpnath Ram, resident of Ward No 1 9 Urmila Devi, wife of Mr Gopal Prasad, resident of Ward No 2 10 Madan Kr Snehi, son of Bharat Keshri, resident of Ward No 3 11 Firoza Khatoon, wife of Faisal Khan, resident of Ward No 4 12 Tabbasum Khatoon, wife of Sarafraz Khan, resident of Ward No 5 13 Akbar Mansoori, son of Allauddin, resident of Ward No 6 14 Jahiral Haque Khan, son of Md Murtuza, resident of Ward No 7 15 Manjoo Devi, wife of Ajay Vidyarthi, resident of Ward No 8 16 Rajesh Keshri, son of Lallau Keshri, resident of Ward No 9 17 Shakuntla Devi, wife of Nandlal Prasad, resident of Ward No 10 18 Sachidanand Prasad, son of Mahavir Prasad Vaidya, resident of Ward No 11 19 Lalita Devi, wife of Bhim Ray, resident of Ward No 12 20 Surendra Pandit, son of Mangal Pandit, resident of Ward No 13 21 Nasima Khatton, wife of Aurangazeb Miyan, resident of Ward No 14 22 Asha Devi, wife of Vinod Sah, resident of Ward No 15 23 Sarwani Khatoon, wife of late Farid Khan, P S – Piro, District - Bhojpur - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Syed Alamdar Hussain, Advocate For respondent No 6 : Mr Sanjay Kumar @ Manu, Advocate For the Election Commission : Mr R S Pradhan, Sr Advocate *** 2 01.04.2010 The petitioner is the Chief Councillor of Piro Nagar Panchayat in the district of Bhojpur. Under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007, a no confidence motion purporting to be under Section 25 (4) of the Act was moved against the Chief 2 Councillor, the petitioner and the Deputy Chief Councillor. The no confidence motion was passed with petitioner not securing a single vote in his favour and the Deputy Chief Councillor securing only two votes in his favour. A report of this appears to have been submitted to the Collector. The Collector of the district took objection to the manner in which meeting was conducted that is apparent from the letter of Collector dated 07th July 2009 to the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat concerned which is contained in Annexure-4. The letter clearly mentions that the Executive Officer wrongly permitted one Councillor to preside over the special meeting as the meeting was for consideration of no confidence against the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor. Mr Alamdar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this matter having been reported to the Government, no steps to relieve the petitioner from the post of Chief Councillor was taken and he continues to function. In view of the fact that petitioner continued, a fresh requisition has been made for convening a special meeting to consider no confidence motion against the petitioner and the Deputy Chief Councillor. The first meeting was held on 29.06.2009 and now the second meeting is being called by a requisition filed in July, 2009. This Court, while issuing notice to the respondents and directing the State to file counter affidavit, stayed further proceedings in the matter by an interim order. Contesting private respondents have appeared and filed an application for vacating the interim order. 3 Having heard the parties, in my view, there is no point keeping the writ petition pending as it can conveniently be disposed of as pleadings are available on record. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. The first contention of Mr Alamdar Hussain in support of the writ petition is that the first meeting was not validly conducted as has been observed by the Collector and, as such, he is competently continuing notwithstanding the loss of confidence in the House. In my view, that is not correct. If one closely reads the communication of the Collector, as referred to above (Annexure-4), it is evident that his objection was as to one of the Councillors presiding over the meeting in which no confidence motion against the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor was being considered. One has to keep in mind that at that time, there was an executive circular issued by the State Government being contained under Memo No 2360 dated 22.06.2009. By this circular, the State Government had provided that where a motion of no confidence was moved against the Chief Councillor and Deputy Chief Councillor simultaneously, the meeting would be convened by the Collector of the district and be presided over by him who would also have a right to cast vote. The circular also provided that while requisitioning such a meeting, reasons for the same must also be given. Here, I may note that unlike the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act 4 2006, there is no corresponding provision in the Municipal Act which requires the charges or reasons to be given for no confidence motion to be stated in the requisition. It is because of this, in the executive circular, such a provision was being made. This circular came to be examined by this Court in detail and this Court struck down the circular as wholly unauthorised and impermissible on part of the State in the case of Pawan Kumar Purvey & Another –Versus- the State of Bihar & Others since reported in 2010 (1) PLJR 272. Mr Alamdar Hussain submits that when the Collector passed the order, the circular was in force and was not struck down by this Court. Here, I may observe that when the first meeting took place on the 29th of June 2009, the Executive Officer and the Councillors were clear as to what had to be done instead of letting the Collector preside, one of the Councillors presided over the meeting as the motion of no confidence was against both the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor. That was appropriate manner of conducting the meeting as has been held in the case of Pawan Kumar Purvey (supra). In that case, this Court has categorically, referring to Section 51 of the Act, held that the meeting had to be presided over in such a situation by any other Councillor. Thus, the meeting was rightfully convened and conducted. Thus seen, there was no illegality in the matter of the first meeting. Even otherwise, this Court fails to understand how 5 once a resolution has been passed, what authority did the Collector and/or State Government have to pronounce upon validity of the House. One must keep in mind that the proceedings of the House (Nagar Panchayat) are proceedings of a local self-Government consisting of democratically elected persons. Generally and normally, executive interference in such matters should be minimal and only to be tolerated in exceptional case. Thus seen, there is no authority in anybody to sit over in appeal over the proceedings of the House. In the result, this Court cannot but hold that removal of the petitioner by a vote of no confidence in the first meeting was final and subject to no interference by any other authority much less on grounds as mentioned by the Collector because those grounds were based upon provision of a circular which has already been struck down by this Court. Thus, the situation is if the petitioner was validly removed in the first meeting itself, the question of second requisition, which has been stayed by this Court, is of no consequence. A dead horse cannot be killed again. In view of the aforesaid findings, nothing remains to be adjudicated. The writ application, with the aforesaid observations and directions, stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)