IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10185 of 2009 1. Amiruddin son of late Dil Mohammad, resident of Ward No.4, Jay Nagar, P.S. and P.O. Jai Nagar, District Madhubani. 2. Ramchandra Mandal, son of late Ram Awtar Mandal, resident of Ward No.14, Jai Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Jai Nagar, District Madhubani. 3. Amar Kumar Paswan son of Sri Ram Lakhan Paswan, resident of Ward No.11, Jainagar, P.O. and P.S. Jainagar, District Madhubani. 4. Ashok Paswan son of late Jiwachh Paswan, resident of Ward No.9, Jainagar, P.O. and P.S. Jai Nagar, District Madhubani. 5. Sheela Devi wife of Ram Awtar Paswan, resident of Ward No.13, Jaynagar, P.O. and P.S. Jaynagar, District Madhubani. 6. Jay Narayan Yadav son of late Ramphal Yadav, resident of Ward No.6, Jaynagar, P.O. and P.S. Jay Nagar, District Madhubani. 7. Chandra Nayak wife of Harishchandra Nayak, resident of Ward No.7, Jaynagar, P.O. and P.S. Jaynagar, District Madhubani. . . . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary cum-Director, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The D.M. Madhubani. 4. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Jainagar, Madhubani. 5. Chanda Devi wife of Pappu Garohia, resident of Ward No.8, Jay Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Jaynagar, District Madhubani. 6. Laxmi Devi wife of Dhanu Ram, resident of Ward No.2, Jaynagar, P.O. and P.S. Jaynagar, District Madhubani. 7. Sakuntala Devi wife of Ramchandra Sah, resident of Ward No.3, Jaynagar, P.O. and P.S. Jaynagar, District Madhubani. 8. Anita Devi wife of Manoj Shah, resident of Ward No.5, Jaynagar, P.O. and P.S. Jaynagar, District Madhubani. 9. Basudeo Paswan son of Ramphal Paswan, resident of Ward No.7, Jaynagar, P.O. and P.S. Jaynagar, District Madhubani. 10. Shekhar Kamat son of Jewach Kamat, resident of Ward No.10, Jaynagar, P.O. and P.S. Jaynagar, District Madhubani. . . . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 2/ 20.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. According to the petitioners majority of Ward Councilors of Jainagar Nagar Panchayat at a meeting of no confidence motion passed a resolution against Chief Councilor which is reflected from Annexure-4. But on a wrong report or complaint of Chief Councilor, Deputy Secretary-cum-Director, Government of Bihar has stayed any - 2 - further action, pursuant to the said meeting, waiting a legal opinion on the issue, a letter in this regard dated 3rd July, 2009 is Annexure1 to the writ application Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the ex-parte order of stay passed by the said respondent has the effect of frustrating the Will of the majority, which is reflected in Annexure- 4. The State Government, therefore, has no power to frustrate or defeat a no confidence motion passed against the Chief Councilor. The submission in this regard may be answered in appropriate case at an appropriate stage. So far as the present dispute is concerned, even from a perusal of the resolution there seems to be something amiss with regard to the procedure. The no confidence motion passed does not seem to be in terms of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, since no secret ballot was held but the members put their signatures on the requisition depending which side they were. Learned counsel for these petitioners submits that they be given yet another opportunity to file a proper requisition, hold a meeting and a final opinion of the majority be taken, if there is infirmity in the earlier resolution adopted. Keeping the matter pending for consideration of the State authority will only frustrate the provisions of Section 25 of the Municipal Act, 2007. There seems to be some force in the contention and the point raised by the learned counsel for these petitioners, the writ application is therefore allowed and disposed of with a direction that if the petitioners have due majority they may place a fresh requisition - 3 - for holding a meeting in accordance with law, if the law enables them to do so. Keeping this matter pending will serve no purpose, therefore, Annexure-1 will have no meaning and it has lost its effect. Uday/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J,)