IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9824 of 2009 MOHAN PRASAD RASTOGI & ANR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioners: - Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raju Giri, Adv. For the State:- Mr. J.S. Arora, S.C. VI Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to SC VI For the Private Respondents: - Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ansul, Adv. -------------- 8. 24.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and for the appearing private respondents. The petitioners are stated to be the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor of the Nagar Panchayat Birpur at Supaul. A Requisition dated 13.6.2009 for no-confidence motion against them was given to the Executive Officer by the Councillors. On 22.6.2009, the State Government came out with a notification that if the no-confidence motion related to the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor, the District Magistrate shall preside over the meeting discussing the no-confidence motion. The Executive Officer requested the District Magistrate to call a meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion. The no-confidence motion was discussed at a meeting held on 17.8.2009 chaired by the District Magistrate and passed. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in 2010 (3) PLJR 411 (Ruby Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). He submits that the executive notification dated 22.6.2009 authorizing the District Magistrate to chair a no-confidence motion being considered against the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor has been held to be without authority. He next submits that the Division Bench has also held the meeting was to be chaired by a Councillor in the event that the motion was to discuss the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor. Moreover, the Executive Officer could not have asked the District Magistrate to hold the meeting for discussing the no-confidence motion, but it was only the Councillors who had submitted the requisition who could call the meeting as further held by the Division Bench. The submission therefore is that the calling of the meeting by the District Magistrate on a requisition made by the Executive Officer was contrary to law as also the conduct of the meeting in which the motion was discussed, chaired by the District Magistrate. Counsel for the State and the appearing respondents jointly submit that in view of the Division Bench judgment, this Court may hold that the 3 requisition made by the Councillors on 13.6.2009 may be considered afresh in accordance with the directions given in the Division Bench judgment. The Court holds that accordingly to the law laid down by the Division Bench the requisition by Executive Officer on 2.7.2009 was contrary to law. It was wrongly chaired by the District Magistrate. The meeting of 17.8.2009 looses its sanctity completely in law and is rendered a nullity. That leaves the question of the nature of the directions to be given based on the requisition stated to have been made on 13.6.2009. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the present case relates to grassroots democracy at the municipality level and not at the State or national level. The Court considers the long passage of time since 13.6.2009, sufficient for the possibility of change in ground realities in the local politics to hold today that the situation as obtaining on 13.6.2009, may not still hold the field. It may or it may not. It shall not be appropriate for the Court to thrust an irretrievable situation as of 13.6.2009. The no-confidence motion against the petitioners stated to have been passed on 17.8.2009 is accordingly set aside. This shall not preclude the Councillors from moving afresh a no-confidence motion 4 against the petitioners in light of the law as discussed by the Division Bench, should circumstances still warrant so. The present no-confidence motion having been held to be a nullity in law, the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 25(4) shall have no application to the petitioner in context of the earlier no-confidence motion. The application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)