IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5586 of 2010 1. Md. Nasiruddin @ Chhote S/O Late Yakub R/O Mohalla- Bari Karballa, P.S. Town, Distt.- Muzaffarpur, Presently Deputy Mayor Of Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Distt. Muzaffarpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, Distt. Muzaffarpur 5. The Municipal Commissioner,Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Distt. Muzaffarpur. ---------------------------------- 7. 16.11.2011. Heard Mr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chandram, learned Assisting Counsel to S.C.8 and Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the direction contained in letter dated 23.2.2010 circulated vide memo no.617 dated 2.3.2010 as contained in Annexure-1, whereby the Deputy Secretary-cum-Director, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, has refused to grant approval to the request made by the respondent Commissioner for providing the facility of an official car to the Deputy Mayor of Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation. 2 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the communication in question is an interference with the independent functioning of the Municipal Corporation as provided under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Responding to the issue raised by the petitioner, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3, i.e. the Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar and wherein a stand was taken that considering the financial stringency being faced by the Corporation, the State Government had advised the Corporation to do away with the facility. However, a specific statement has been made in para-8 of the counter affidavit that the Empowered Standing Committee of the Corporation constituted under section 21 of the Act, is the competent authority to take a final decision in the matter. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation sworn by the Assistant Engineer and in which, the deponent voicing the same opinion as given by the Urban 3 Development and Housing Department, has stated that in view of the inadequate financial resources, it was difficult for the Corporation to provide the facility of an official car to the Deputy Mayor. The petitioner responding to the said stand of the Corporation, as evinced in the counter affidavit, has filed a rejoinder thereto enclosing the Minutes of the proceeding of the Empowered Standing Committee held on 12.3.2010 and at Agenda No.2 thereof, a specific decision has been taken by the Empowered Standing Committee of the Corporation for providing an official car to the Deputy Mayor. The Empowered Standing Committee of the Corporation being the supreme executive body of the Corporation in terms of Section 22 of the Act and having taken decision to provide an official car to the petitioner, the same can not be interfered with either by the Municipal Commissioner or any other authority of the Corporation or the State Govt. until such time the said decision of the Empowered Standing Committee continues to operate and the authorities of the Corporation shall be legally 4 obliged to carry out the same. The writ petition is allowed. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)