IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1834 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10291 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 8245 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1834 of 2011 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar, son of Late Bulkan Prasad, Resident of Maa Dulari Kunj, Bhanwar Pokhar behind the Pakka Kuan, P.S. Pirbahore, P.O.-Bankipore, District-Patna, Bihar. .... .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Town Planning and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Patna Municipal Corporation through the Municipal Commissioner, Mauryalok, Patna. 3. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary-cum-Director, Town Planning and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Chief Councilor, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 02-12-2011 Interlocutory Application No. 8245 of 2011: Patna High Court LPA No.1834 of 2011 (2) dt.02-12-2011 2 / 3 2 The delay of 35 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No.1834 of 2011: Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23rd September 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 10291 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The matter at dispute is the validity of the no confidence motion moved by the petitioner and others against the Chief Councillor, Patna Municipal Corporation. Admittedly, the no confidence motion brought against the then Chief Councillor, the present appellant, was successful and he was ordered to be removed from the office. One year after the new Chief Councillor assumed office, the appellant sought to bring no confidence motion against the newly elected Chief Councillor. The said motion was not permitted by the Municipal Commissioner. The action of the Municipal Commissioner was challenged by the appellant in above C.W.J.C. No. 10291 of 2011. Although the learned single Judge held that the Municipal Commissioner could not have been guided by the executive Instruction issued by the State Government, the learned single Judge opined that a no confidence motion within two years from the date of the appointment of the Chief Councillor was barred under the first proviso to sub-section (4) of section 25 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has relied upon the second proviso Patna High Court LPA No.1834 of 2011 (2) dt.02-12-2011 3 / 3 3 to sub-section (4) of section 25 of the Act to submit that the second no confidence motion can be brought within less than two years from the date of the first no confidence motion but not within one year therefrom. We are unable to agree with Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh. The conjoint reading of sub-section (4) and provisos thereunder make it more than clear that no confidence motion envisaged in second proviso to sub-section (4) of section 25 of the Act contemplates the second no confidence motion against the Chief Councillor against whom the first no confidence motion could not be passed. The language of the first proviso permits any Chief Councillor or Deputy Chief Councillor to function as such for two years from the date of taking over the charge of the post without being confronted by the no confidence motion. We entirely agree with the learned single Judge. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)