IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12292 of 2010 1. RAKIBA KHATOON W/O SHRI NAJMUL HUDA R/O MOHALLA- BARI SANGAT, P.S. JAHANABAD, DISTT.- JAHANABAD 2. SANJAY KUMAR S/O LATE NARESH PRASAD SHARMA R/O VILL.- NIJAMUDDINPUR, P.S. JAHANABAD, DISTT.- JAHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE NAGAR PARISHAD, JAHANABAD THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JAHANABAD 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PARISHAD, JAHANABAD 5. S.D.O., JAHANABAD 6. AWADH SHARMA, COUNCILLOR WARD NO. 4, NAGAR PARISHAD, JAHANABAD 7. MOHAMMAD MUSTAQUE, COUNCILLOR WARD NO. 16, NAGAR PARISHAD, JAHANABAD 8. SAMUDRI DEVI, COUNCILLOR WARD NO.3, NAGAR PARISHAD, JAHANABAD 9. TARIKH KHARUN, COUNCILLOR WARD NO.30, NAGAR PARISHAD, JAHANABAD 10. MADHURI DEVI, COUNCILLOR WARD NO.6, NAGAR PARISHAD, JAHANABAD 11. RAMASHRAYA SINGH, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.2 NAGAR PARISHAD, JAHANABAD 12. NURSABA KHATOON, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO. 27, NAGAR PARISHAD, JAHANABAD 13. ANITA KUMARI, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO. 31, NAGAR PARISHAD, JAHANABAD 14. RAUSHAN ARA, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO. 13, NAGAR PARISHAD, JAHANABAD 15. REHANA BEGUM, COUNCILLOR WARD NO. 12, NAGAR PARISHAD, JAHANABAD 16. ANITA KUMARI, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO. 7, JAHANABAD ----------- 03. 28.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the Nagar Parishad, Jehanabad. The petitioners are stated to be the Chief Councilor and Deputy Chief Councilor of the Nagar Parishad, aggrieved by the requisition dated 15.7.2010 2 under Section 25 (4) calling for a special meeting to discuss a “No Confidence Motion” against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were elected on 15.7.2009. Relying on Section 25 (4) of the Act, he submits that a “No Confidence Motion” could not be brought within a period of two years from taking over the charge. The writ petition was filed as far back as 22.7.2010 after serving copies on the counsel for the State and the Nagar Parishad. No counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the requisition has not been tabled and has not been the subject matter of any discussion. On the own showing of the petitioners, they would have a limited right under the aforesaid provision till 14.7.2011 when the two years bar would expire. Considering that about two and half months remain, and the failure of the respondents to file a counter affidavit, the writ application is disposed on the principles of non- traverse holding that a “No Confidence Motion” cannot be tabled against the petitioners prior to 15.7.2010. The writ application stands allowed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)