IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3854 of 2009 Sudha Devi, Wife of Sri Suraj Kumar, Resident of Mohalla Pachna Road, Keul Basti, P.O. & P.S. Lakhisarai in the district of Lakhisarai. ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Election Commissioner, Bihat, Patna, through its Secretary. 2. The State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 3. Anil Kumar Rai, Son of Late Jauhari Mahto, Resident of Ward No. 20, Bichari Sthan, Naya Bazar, Lakhisarai, P.S. Lakhisarai in the district of Lakhisarai. ---- Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Shiw Kumar Prabhakar, Advocate For the State Election : Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Senior Advocate Commission Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate 4 24.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission. By the impugned order dated 4.3.2009 the petitioner has been removed from the post of a Councillor on the ground that he was absent for three consecutive meeting without having previously obtained permission from the Councillors at a meeting. There are two aspects of this matter. Firstly, the requirement is that the person should be absent for three consecutive meetings. Secondly, the provision envisages that the absentee member should take prior permission from the Municipality before remaining absent. The provision [Section 18 (n)] is being quoted below: “18 (n) Has been absent from three consecutive meetings or sitting of the Municipality without 2 having previously obtained permission from the councillors at a meeting.” The order impugned indicates that the petitioner was absent on 21.4.2008 and 23.5.2008 for the reasons that on 21.4.2008 the petitioner had to attend a wedding and on 23.5.2008 she had contacted Jaundice and was too unwell to attend the meeting. It would also appear from the order impugned that the petitioner had applied to the Chairman for permission. Apparently permission was granted to her. The order impugned seeks to reject or disregard the application filed on behalf of the petitioner on the grounds, (a) that the petitioner had not taken prior permission and, (b) that the permission was not granted to the petitioner by the Councillors. Dealing with the first ground for rejection, this Court finds that the stand of the Commission is rather odd, in view of the fact that a person cannot envisage that he would be ill on a particular date and thus file an application in advance. The fact that the petitioner had filed the application to the concerned authority indicating that she was unwell or giving reason for not attending the meeting is sufficient compliance of the provision 3 of law. I may also point out that the application filed by a particular Councillor would only be placed before the Councillors in the meeting held by them. It cannot be imagined that a Councillor would be required to file a separate petition to all the Councillors. In other words the question of allowing or rejecting the application for absence would and can only be considered when the meeting is held. In the circumstances, I find that the reasons for disqualifying the petitioner as a Councillor of the Nagar Parishad, Lakhisarai are not tenable in law for the reasons mentioned aforesaid. Specific emphasis may be given to the fact, that the petitioner has not been absent on three consecutive dates and as such, the order is bad on this count as well. In the result, this Court quashes Annexure-8. The consequential order by which the elections have been announced for the post held by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-10 is also quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)