IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15110 of 2010 1. SHARDA NAND SINGH S/O BALESHWAR YADAV R/O VILL. AND P.S.- SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, ARA, CHIEF COUNCILLAR, NAGAR PANCHAYAT, SHAHPUR, BHOJPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR, ARA 4. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, BHOJPUR, ARA 5. NAGAR PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGAR PANCHAYAT, SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, ARA 6. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, ARA 7. MD. MUKHTAR SHAH S/O LATE BARPHALI SHAH R/O VILL. AND P.S.- SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, DEPUTY CHIEF COUNCILLAR, NAGAR PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR (ARA) 8. GAYA NATH YADAV S/O LATE CHANDRIKA YADAV R/O SHOBHITOLA, SHAHPUR, P.S.- SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, COUNCILLAR, WARD NO.1, NAGAR PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 9. GOPAL JI PRASAD S/O LATE RAM AUTAR SAH R/O VILLAGE AND P.S.- SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, COUNCILLAR, WARD NO.3, NAGAR PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 10. SHIV KAILASH RAM S/O LATE TENGAR RAM R/O VILLAGE AND P.S.- SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, COUNCILLAR, WARD NO.4, NAGAR PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 11. SMT. REETA DEVI W/O SANTOSH PANDEY R/O VILLAGE AND P.S.- SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, COUNCILLAR, WARD NO.5, NAGAR PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 12. SMT. BAIJYANTI DEVI W/O AJAY SAH R/O VILL. AND P.S.- SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, COUNCILLAR, WARD NO.6, NAGAR PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 13. SMT. SANTOSHI DEVI W/O SOHAN PRASAD R/O VILL.- GOPALPUR, P.S.- SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.7, NAGAR PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 14. SMT. ASHA DEVI W/O MUNNA PANDIT R/O VILL. AND P.S.- SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.8, NAGAR PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 15. SMT. BABITA DEVI W/O KRISHNA KUMAR R/O VILL. AND P.S.- SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.9, NAGAR PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 2 16. RAJU DHANUK S/O HARIBANSH DHANUK R/O VILL. AND P.S.- SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.10, NAGAR PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR For the Petitioner:- Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate, A.C. to G.A.-8 For Private Respondents: Mr. S.B.K. Manglam & Mrs. Anita Kumari, Advocates ----------- 02. 05.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for respondents 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. The petitioner was the Chief Councillor of the Nagar Panchayat, Shahpur, District-Bhojpur. The total number of Councillors including him were 11. Earlier a special meeting was sought to be convened on 4.7.2009 for a “No Confidence Motion” questioned by him in C.W.J.C. No. 9234 of 2009, when this Court stayed the operation of the order convening the meeting. On 17.7.2010 a fresh requisition was made by six members. The meeting came to be held subsequently on an adjourned date. The petitioner and four other did not participate. The Motion was passed by six persons. The new Chief Councillor has assumed the post. I.A. No. 8453 of 2010 has been filed, challenging the resolution dated 13.9.2010 ousting him by the “No Confidence Motion”. Having heard the parties, the I.A. is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original requisition dated 17.7.2010 containing the 3 statement of reasons/allegations upon which the “No Confidence Motion” was sought to be brought, was never served on the petitioner. The original meeting fixed on 30.8.2010, on the aforesaid requisition got adjourned to 13.9.2010. The latter date was not fixed by the members, who alone could do so, but it has been determined by the Executive Officer of the Municipality. Under Rule 2 (iii) of the Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Process Rules 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the requisitionist councillors alone could have fixed the fresh date. The petitioner did receive a communication by Speed Post, but it only contained intimation of the fresh date fixed without the statement of reasons/allegations dated 17.7.2010. The requisition being not in accordance with law, the date of the adjourned meeting not having been fixed in accordance with law, the Rules not having been complied by service of the allegations, the “No Confidence Motion” dated 13.9.2010 stands vitiated. Learned counsel for the appearing councillors submits that the petitioner was evading service of the requisition dated 17.7.2010. Rule 2(iii) has no application to an adjourned meeting. The requisition was discussed on the Floor of the House from which the petitioner had abstained. Once the petitioner acknowledges that the communication for the adjourned date of 13.9.2010 was communicated to 4 him by Speed Post, dispatched on 19.7.2010 and received well in time, it was for him to demonstrate that the statement of allegations was not enclosed to the same when he does not deny that the earlier attempts to serve him personally mentioned in the letter of the Executive Officer dated 6.9.2010 had proved futile. The Court upon consideration of the Rule 2 (iii) holds that it applies to the original requisition and the first meeting for the “No Confidence Motion”. The Rules are silent with regard to the procedure for fixing the date of the adjourned meeting. The reason is obvious. The original requisition may be by other councillors against the Chief Councillor, who may be reluctant to call the meeting. Power has therefore been vested in the requisitionist to call the first meeting. After the first meeting is called in the aforesaid manner, the Chief Councillor is now fully aware of the pendency of a “No Confidence Motion” against him. He is only required to be made aware of the adjourned date. It is only a executive procedural act. Nothing has been demonstrated what prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the reason of the Executive Officer fixing the date of the adjourned meeting. The Court therefore holds that Rule 2 (iii) has no application to an adjourned meeting. The petitioner acknowledges that the notice for the adjourned meeting was sent to him by Speed Post on 5 19.7.2010 and was received by him. He disputes that it contained any reasons of the allegations. From the letter dated 13.8.2010 received by the petitioner, it is apparent that it contained enclosures with regard to the “No Confidence Motion”. The petitioner does not deny in the writ petition that it did contain enclosures. What were the enclosures therefore remain in the realm of speculation. This coupled with the fact that there is no denial in the writ petition of the statement made in the letter of the Executive Officer dated 6.9.2010, that the necessity for sending the requisition dated 17.7.2010 by speed post arose because of his unavailability and consequent inability to serve the same by hand, the Court satisfied that it cannot be held that the allegations were not served upon the petitioner. On the contrary the court arrives at the conclusion that the petitioner has been unable to establish the foundational facts. Once the “No Confidence Motion” has been tabled and the petitioner at his own risk refused to participate, the Motion has been passed, the Court is not persuaded on the submissions presently made to interfere with the working of grass root democracy by thrusting the petitioner back as Chief Councillor upon the unwilling majority which shall necessarily have its effect on the Executive functioning of the Nagar Panchayat and its 6 schemes with all attendant consequences. On the contrary, probity and responsibility as an elected person required the petitioner to participate in the discussions of the “No Confidence Motion” and satisfied the others of his capacity. The petitioner retains his status as a Ward Councillor. He shall still have more ample opportunities to demonstrate his efficiency and on the strength of democracy to work his way back to the post from the ouster of which he is aggrieved. The writ petition is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J. )