IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1442 of 2009 1.SUNITA DEVI W/O SRI YUGAL KISHORE AGRAWAL CHIEF COUNCILLOR, NAGAR PARISHAD , SUPAUL, P.S.&DISTT- SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT O F URBAN DEVELOPMENTAND HOUSING GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND HOUSING GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. NAGAR PARISHAD, SUPAUL THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFCER 5. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PARISHAD SUPAUL 6. BAIJU KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/O SRI MAHADEV CHOUDHARY R/O WARD NO.17, DHOBI TOLA, P.S.SUPAUL, TOWN & DISTT- SUPAUL 7. DEPUTY CHIEF COUNCILLOR, NAGAR PARISHAD SUPAUL ---------- For the Appellant :- M/S. Raghubansh Singh, Sr. Advocate Raghunath Singh For the State :- Mr. P. K. Sharan, A.C. to AAG XI For Respondent No. 4 :- Mr. Amitesh Kumar For Respondent No. 7 :- Mr. Vinay Ranjan. -------- 2 02/12/2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent no. 6 as well as learned counsel representing the State and Nagar Parishad, Supaul. The writ petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of the Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad, Supaul declining to convene a special meeting requisitioned for - 2 - deciding upon vote of no confidence against the Chief Councilor and Deputy Chief Councilor. The writ Court considered the matter in detail and found merit in the writ petition. The impugned order was passed with a direction that special meeting of Supaul Nagar Parishad be convened within two weeks from the date of the order for considering no confidence motion against the Chief Councilor and the Deputy Chief Councilor. We have been informed that pursuant to the order of the writ Court, special meeting was held on 18.11.2009 and no confidence motion has succeeded against the appellant who was the Chief Councilor and also against the Deputy Chief Councilor. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that proceedings are still pending before the Election Commission for declaring the writ petitioner and some other Councilor who had requisitioned for the special meeting that they be declared disqualified for holding the post of Councilor. It has further been submitted that in view of the aforesaid fact, the result of the special meeting held on 18.11.2009 wherein no confidence motion was carried out - 3 - with a difference of only one vote was not in accordance with law. We find no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the writ Court. So far as legality or illegality of the result of meeting held on 18.11.2009 is concerned that can only provide a separate cause of action to the appellant. Hence, while granting opportunity to the appellant that, if so advised, the appellant may challenge the result of the meeting held on 18.11.2009 in accordance with law, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. AMIN (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)