IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1564 of 2009 RUBY SINGH, WIFE OF MANISH SINGH, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 21, BHOOP NARAIN SINGH COLONY, P.S- MADHUBANI, DISTT- MADHUBANI. …PETITIONER/APPELLANT. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DEPUTY SECRETAWRY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. COMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA. 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI. 6. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 7. CHAIRMAN, MADHUBANI NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 8. PUNAM DEVI, W/O BHAGWAN LAL PRASAD, R/O WARD NO. 6, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBAI. 9. MAHESH MAHTO S/O SHIVJI MAHTO R/O WARD NO. 5, P.S- AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 10. JAI SHANKAR SAH S/O LATE MAHANTHI SAH R/O WARD NO. 1, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 11. BAJRANG MAHTO S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA MAHTO R/O WARD NO. 2, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 12. SUDHA DEVI W/O TRILOKI MANDAL R/O WARD NO. 7, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 13. OM PRAKASH THAKUR, S/O LATE GHURAN THAKUR R/O WARD NO. 5, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 14. MAKHANI DEVI W/O RAM PRIT PASWAN R/O WARD NO. 9, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 15. PAWAN KARAK S/O LATE NARAYAN KARAK R/O WARD NO. 10, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 16. SHAHNAJ KHATOON, W/O FAKRUDDIN, R/O WARD NO. 25, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 17. BIMLA KHATO DEVI, W/O SURESH DAS, R/O WARD NO. 26, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 18. VIJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY, S/O SITA RAM CHOUDHARY R/O WARD NO. 16, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 19. SAMIUR RAHMAN, S/O NOZIUR RAHMAN, R/O WARD NO. 29, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. - 2 - 20. SUNITA DEVI, W/O ANIL PURVEY @ SUNIL PURVEY, R/O WARD NO. 14, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 21. KRISHNA DEVI, W/O KAILASH SAH, R/O WARD NO 18, P.S- AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 22. HENA KAUSAR, W/O MD. ISTIYAK, R/O WARD NO. 17, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 23. ANUJA JHA, S/O KEDAR NATH JHA, R/O WARD NO. - 20, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 24. RAUSHAN KHATOON, W/O MD. IDRISH, R/O WARD NO. 4, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 25. SUMITRA DEVI, W/O JAMUN SAHNI, R/O WARD NO. 27, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. …..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS. For the appellant : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate Mr. A.K.Thakur, Advocate For respondent nos.1 to 5 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, A.C to A.A.G.-I For respondent nos. 6 & 7 : Mr. B.N.P.Singh, Advocate For respondents 8 to 25 : Mr. Purushottam Jha, Advocate ------- WITH LPA No.1579 of 2009 PAWAN KUMAR PURBEY, S/O LATE BALDEO PURVEY, R/O MOHALLA-SURATGANJ, WARD NO.15, MADHUBANI, DISTT- MADHUBANI. WRIT PETITIONER/ APPELLANT. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, REPRESENTED THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA. 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADUBANI. 6. THE SUB- DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, MADHUBANI. 7. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PRISHAD, MADHUBANI. 8. SMT. PUNAM DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 6, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. - 3 - 9. SRI MAHESH MAHTO, SON OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 8, NAGAR PARISHAD MADHUBANI. 10. SHRI JAI SHANKAR SAH, SON OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 1, NAGAR PARISHAD- MADHUBANI. 11. SRI BAJRANG MAHTO, SON OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 2, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 12. SMT. SUDHA DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 7, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 13. SRI OM PRAKASH THAKUR, SON OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 5, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 14. SMT. MAKHANI DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 3, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 15. SHRI PAWAN KARAK, SON OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 10, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 16. SHAHNAJ KHATOON, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 25, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 17. SMT. BIMLA KHATO DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 26, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 18. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY, SON OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 16, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 19. SAMIUR RAHMAN, SON OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 29, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 20. SUNITA DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 14, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 21. KRISHNA DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 18, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 22. HENA KAUSAR, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 17, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 23. ANUJA JHA, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 20, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. 24. RAUSHAN KHATOON, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 4, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. - 4 - 25. SMT. SUMITRA DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, COUNCILOR OF WARD NO. 27, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI. …..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS. For the appellant : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate Mr. A.K.Thakur, Advocate For respondent nos.1 to 6 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, A.C to A.A.G.-I For respondent nos. 7 : Mr. B.N.P.Singh, Advocate For respondents 8 to 25 : Mr. Purushottam Jha, Advocate --------- WITH LPA No.1580 of 2009 1. PAWAN KUMAR PURBEY S/O LATE BALDEO PURVEY, R/O MOHALLA-SURATGANJ, WARD NO. 15, P.S MADHUBANI, DISTT- MADHUBANI. 2. FAROOQUE ANSARI S/O LATE BAM BHOLA MAJID, R/O STADIUM ROAD, WARD NO. 22, P.S- MADHUBANI, DISTT- MADHUBANI. ......WRIT PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA. 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI. 6. INCHARGE DY. COLLECTOR, GENERAL SECTION, MADHUBANI. 7. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PARISHAD, MADHUBANI 8. VIJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY, S/O SITA RAM CHOUDHARY, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 16, LOHA PATTI ROAD, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 9. BAJRANG MAHTO, S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA MAHTO, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 2, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-SANTU NAGAR, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 10. MAHESH MAHTO, S/O SHIVJI MAHTO, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 8, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- NONIA TOLI, P.S- AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. - 5 - 11. MAKHANI DEVI, W/O RAM PRIT PASWAN, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 9, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – DHANIK TOLA, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 12. JAI SHANKAR SAH, S/O LATE MAHANTHI SAH, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 1, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- LAHERIAGANJ, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 13. OM PRAKASH THAKUR, S/O LATE GHURAN THAKUR, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 5, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- GADIYANI, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 14. RAUSHAN KHATOON, W/O MD. IDRISH, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 4, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – R.K.COLLEGE, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI 15. POONAM DEVI, W/O BHAGWAN LAL PRASAD, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 6, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- BABU SAHEB CHOWK, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBAI 16. SUDHA DEVI, W/O TRILOKI MANDAL, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 7, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – GAUSHALA ROAD PURANI GHATT., P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 17. SUNITA DEVI, W/O ANIL PURVEY, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 14, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-J.P.COLONY, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 18. HENA KAUSAR, W/O MD. ISTIYAK, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 17, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA –SURATGANJ, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 19. KRISHNA DEVI, W/O KAILASH SAH, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO 18, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- GANGASAGAR CHOWK, P.S- AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 20. SAMIUR RAHMAN, S/O MOZIUR RAHMAN, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 29, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- KOTWALI CHOWK, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 21. SHAHNAJ KHATOON, W/O FAKRUDDIN, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 25, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- KARBALA CHOWK, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 22. SUMITRA DEVI, W/O JAMUN SAHNI, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 27, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-MALLAH TOLI, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 23. ANUJA JHA, W/O KEDAR NATH JHA, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. - 20, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-HANUMAN NAGAR, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. 24. PAWAN KARAK, S/O LATE DEV NARAYAN KARAK, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 10, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-KARAK PATTI, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. - 6 - 25. BIMLA KHATO DEVI, W/O SURESH DAS, WARD MEMBER, WARD NO. 26, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- YADAV TOLA, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI. …..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS. For the appellants : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate Mr. A.K.Thakur, Advocate For respondent nos.1 to 6 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, A.C to A.A.G.-I For respondent no. 7 : Mr. B.N.P.Singh, Advocate For respondents 8 to 25 : Mr. Purushottam Jha, Advocate ------- PRESENT: THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA O R D E R (15-04-2010) As per Dipak Misra, C.J. In this batch of appeals, the assail is to the common order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of three writ petitions, namely, CWJC No.7646 of 2009, CWJC No.7567 of 2009 and CWJC No.8075 of 2009, whereby he has directed the Chief Councillor to fix and notify a special meeting with regard to no confidence motion against him and the Deputy Chief Councillor in accordance with the requisition as received and seek confidence of the House within the period as provided under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (for brevity, „the Act‟). 2. Be it noted, though there were three writ petitions and three appeals have been preferred against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge, yet the factual exposition in all the cases - 7 - has an inseparable thread of commonality and, therefore, it is apposite to adumbrate the facts in singular compartment. 3. Eighteen Councillors of Madhubani Nagar Parishad filed requisition for convening special meeting of the Nagar Parishad for considering of the vote of no confidence against the Chief Councillor as well as the Deputy Chief Councillor. On the basis of the requisition, the Chief Councillor fixed the meeting to 16.07.2009 and noticed the Councillors. On the 09th of July, 2009, the in-charge Additional Collector informed the Chief Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad that in view of the order dated 08.07.2009 of the District Magistrate, Madhubani, the special meeting relating to the vote of no confidence against the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor should be adjourned to 10.30 a.m. on 17.07.2009 and the said meeting should be held at the Vikash Bhawan. It is the admitted position that the Collector-cum-District Magistrate had received the earlier communication from the Nagar Parishad in which the meeting was fixed to 16.07.2009. As the Collector-cum- District Magistrate had no role in the scheme of the Act, the said order passed by the Collector came to be challenged in CWJC no.8075 of 2009. The writ petition came to be filed by the petitioners who are the Chief Councilor and the Deputy Chief Councillor. - 8 - 4. In CWJC No.7646 of 2009, a Ward Member assailed the notice containing memo no. 442 dated 01.07.2009 issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Madhubani by which he had directed the Chief Councillor to call a meeting on 16.07.2009 at 11.a.m. for consideration of the no confidence motion. The notice issued by the Executive Officer contained the circular issued by the State Government, as contained in memo no.2360 dated 22.06.2009, wherein it has been stipulated that the meeting would be held as per the procedure laid down in the said circular. Be it noted, the said circular has been issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing. The writ petitioner challenged the circular on the ground that in the said circular, it has been stipulated that once a notice has been given for holding a meeting of no confidence motion, the same shall not be postponed and for discussion on the motion, there would be no necessity for a quorum. To put it otherwise, it has been conveyed by the circular that the meeting of no confidence would be allowed to continue even if the minimum quorum is not fulfilled. It was contended that the authority had no power to issue such a circular as that would run counter to the mandate of the statute. 5. In CWJC No.7567 of 2009 filed by the petitioner-Chief Councillor of the Municipal Council,it was stated that after getting the information from the Chief Executive Officer, he had instructed on - 9 - 22.06.2009 for convening the meeting of the council on 16.07.2009, but the same was adjourned by the Collector placing reliance on the circular dated 22.06.2009 which had no legs to stand upon. It was also urged that the District Magistrate had no right to change the date or to preside over the meeting. It was also contended that in the absence of any framing of rules as mandated under Section 25(4) of the Act, vote of no confidence motion could not be mooted. 6. A counter affidavit was filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that in the absence of the statutory rule, the State was competent to issue circular which would have force of the rule. The said circular provides that where there is no confidence motion against the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor simultaneously, the meeting would be called for by the Collector of the District and would be presided over by him and convened under his supervision or under his delegated authority. It further provides that for such a special meeting, there would be no requirement of quorum. It was put forth that as no procedure is envisaged in the Act how a vote of no confidence motion is to be moved and mooted when there is a requisition against both the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor, the said circular was issued to fill up the lacuna. Reliance was placed under various provisions of the Act especially Section 487 of the Act which deals with removal of difficulties. - 10 - 7. Before we proceed to state about the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge, it is apt to mention that on 16.07.2009 in CWJC No.8075 of 2009 wherein the postponement of the meeting by the District Magistrate vide communication dated 09th July, 2009 was assailed, the said order was stayed and further it was directed status quo prior to the holding of the meeting of no confidence motion fixed for the date, i.e., 16.07.2009, shall be maintained. 8. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, came to hold that the notification issued by the State Government vide memo no.2360 dated 22.06.2009 making provision for holding of special meeting is totally contrary to the provisions contained in Sections 25(4) and 51 of the Act and, therefore, cannot be accepted to remain in force and the State Government in the guise of issuing executive instructions cannot usurp the statutory provision. He has further opined that the Act itself takes care about the person who would preside over the meeting under Section 51 of the Act and, hence, the District Magistrate could not have been conferred the power by executive instruction more so in the absence of a rule. The language employed in Section 25(4) of the Act to the effect that “the manner prescribed” would mean the manner prescribed as in the statute, meaning thereby making rules and not by issuing executive instructions. The learned - 11 - Single Judge has further held that the State Government had no authority whatsoever to stipulate that no quorum would be necessary as the same is in clear transgression of the postulates laid down in the Act. Being of this view, the learned Single Judge came to hold that the meeting could not have been adjourned by the District Magistrate. After so holding, it has been noted by him that by order dated 16.07.2009, the writ court had stayed the communication of the Collector and a meeting was held by the Chief Councillor on that day and the same was attended by 12 members. The learned Single Judge further took note of the fact that once the meeting was adjourned by the District Magistrate and due to the interim order passed on 16.07.2009 in which parties were not represented the meeting was held, it cannot be regarded as a notice to all. He further took note of the fact that the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor after obtaining the interim order immediately held the meeting on the same day and, therefore, the resolution passed therein cannot be treated to be proper resolution passed in a valid meeting and, accordingly, it directed the Chief Councillor to fix and notify a special meeting, with the agenda with regard to no confidence motion against him and the Deputy Chief Councillor in accordance with the requisition, as received and seek confidence of the House within the period as has been provided in the Act. - 12 - 9. We have heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in LPA No. 1564 of 2009, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in LPA No. 1579 of 2009 and LPA No. 1580 of 2009, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Ritesh Kumar, AC to AAG-I for the State, Mr. B.N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 6 & 7 and Mr. Purushottam Jha, learned counsel for the respondents no. 8 to 25. 10. Section 25 of the Act deals with removal of Chief Councillor / Deputy Chief Councillor. It reads as follows: “25.Removal of Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor.- (1) The Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor shall cease to hold office as such if he ceases to be a Councillor. (2) The Chief Councillor may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Divisional Commissioner and Deputy Chief Councillor may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Chief Councillor. (3) Every resignation under sub-section (2) shall take effect on the expiry of seven days from the date of such resignation, unless within the said period of seven days he withdraws such resignation by writing under his hand addressed to the Divisional Commissioner or the Chief Councillor, as the case may be. - 13 - (4) The Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor may be removed from office by a resolution carried by a majority of the whole number of Councillors holding office for the time being at a special meeting to be called for this purpose in the manner prescribed, upon a requisition made in writing by not less than one-third of the total number of Councillors, and the procedure for the conduct of business in the special meeting shall be such as may be prescribed: “Provided that a no confidence motion shall not be brought against the Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor within a period of two years of taking over the charge of the post: Provided further that a no confidence motion shall not be brought again within one year of the first no confidence motion: Provided further also that no confidence motion shall not be brought within the residual period of six months of the municipality. (5) “Without prejudice to the provisions under this Act, if, in opinion of the Divisional Commissioner having territorial jurisdiction over the Municipality the Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor absents himself without sufficient cause for more than three consecutive meetings or sittings or willfully omits or refuses to perform his duties and - 14 - functions under this Act, or is found to be guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties or becomes physically or mentally incapacitated for performing his duties or is absconding being an accused in a criminal case for more than six months, the Divisional Commissioner may, after giving the Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor a reasonable opportunity for explanation, by order, remove such Chief Councillor from office. (6) The Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor so removed shall not be eligible for re-election as Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor or Councillor during the remaining term of office of such Municipality. Appeal shall lie before the State Government against the order of the Divisional Commissioner.” 11. Sub-section (4) of the said Section postulates that a resolution has to be carried out by majority of the whole number of Councillors holding office for the time being at a special meeting to be called for this purpose in the manner prescribed upon a requisition made in writing by not less than one-third of the total number of Councillors, and the procedure for the conduct of business in the special meeting shall be such as may be prescribed. 12. In the dictionary clause, the term `prescribed‟ has been conferred a meaning under Section 2(76) of the Act whereby it has - 15 - been stated that `prescribed‟ means `prescribed by rules made under the Act‟. It is not in dispute that the State Government has not framed the rules. In the absence of the rules, a circular has been issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. The said circular in various clauses has laid down certain conditions which have been discussed by the learned single Judge at length. In Clause 4 of the said circular, there is a stipulation that no quorum would be necessary. The said stipulation is in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions and cannot be held to be valid. That apart, the said circular confers power on the District Magistrate. 13. Chapter VII of the Act in Part-A deals with Transaction of Business by Municipality. Section 51 which occurs in the said provision reads as follows: “51.Presiding officer of a meeting of Municipality.- (1) The Chief Councillor shall preside at every meeting of the Municipality and in his absence the Deputy Chief Councillor shall preside the meeting: Provided that when a meeting is held to consider a motion for the removal of the Chief Councillor, the Chief Councillor shall not preside at such meeting. (2) The Chief Councillor, or the person presiding over a meeting of the Municipality, shall also have, and may exercise, a casting vote in all cases of equality of votes”. 14. On a reading of the said provision, it is clear as day that the Chief Councillor shall preside over the meeting and in his - 16 - absence, the Deputy Chief Councillor shall do so. In the proviso, an exception has been carved out that the Chief Councillor shall not preside at such a meeting if the meeting has been convened to consider a motion for his removal. Sub-section (2) empowers the Chief Councillor or the person presiding over a meeting of the Municipality to exercise a casting vote in all cases of equality of votes. It can be stated by applying the deductive method that a person who has power to cast his vote can only preside over the meeting. If the scheme of the Act is read in proper perspective, there can be no scintilla of doubt that a Chief Councillor who has power to participate in the transaction has power to vote. Thus, a Chief Councillor can, under certain circumstances, be asked to preside over the meeting. Such a contingency can be met with if there is a requisition to moot a motion of no confidence against the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor. No role can be ascribed to any person from the executive to preside over such a meeting. True it is, there are provisions in certain statutes where a meeting is held in the presence of the Executive Officer of the Municipality or by a Sub Divisional Officer or even by the District Magistrate, but in the said provisions, no power is conferred on them for casting vote in case of equality of votes but Section 51 of the Act has been differently couched and, therefore, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that a meeting has to be presided over by the - 17 - Chief Councillor or the Deputy Councillor or the Councillor which would be in apposite and in fitness of thing in a democratic set up regard being had to the power conferred on the Municipalities under the Act. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the plea of the State Government that to meet a contingency of this nature, the executive instruction was issued does not deserve acceptance and, accordingly, we concur with the finding of the learned single Judge on that score. 16. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the absence of a rule as provided under Section 25(4)