IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9669 of 2009 USHA DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . For the Petitioner:- Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary, Advocate For the Private Respondent:- Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Adv. For Nagar Panchayat:- Mr. Vijay Shankar Upadhyay, Adv. ----------- 03. 01.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Koilwar at Bhojpur and for the respondent nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 18. The petitioner and respondent no. 18 inter alia were elected as members of the Nagar Panchayat, Koilwar, District Bhojpur. They were then elected as Chief Councilor and Deputy Chief Councilor respectively. A requisition for “No Confidence Motion” against them was made under Section 25 of the Bihar Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Act). The Motion was tabled on 1.7.2009. It was passed successfully against the petitioner. Amongst the 14 persons present, 10 were in favour of the Motion, one against the Motion and 3 of the ballots cast were rejected as illegal. Six of the ten persons moved an affidavit during the “No Confidence Motion” that they were taking back their requisition with regard to respondent no. 18. This took the number of motions for No Confidence against him down to fore and it never came to 2 be tested on the floor of the House. The submission on behalf of the petitioner/Chief Councilor is that Section 50 (5) of the Act provides that voting shall be by show of hands. The proviso with regard to a secret ballot was to come into operation only after regulations had been framed making provision for such secret ballot of such questions that may be resolved by the Municipality. No regulations have been framed under Section 421 of the Act. The voting was therefore to be done by show of hands only. Consideration done by secret ballot was illegal. The next submission is that in absence of any provision for withdrawal of a requisition for a “No Confidence Motion” once it has been tabled in accordance with law and a meeting requisitioned, the requisition necessarily has to go through the discussion and rigours of a consideration and discussion whereafter it may be passed or it may fail depending on the extent of the support that the requisition may find. The dropping of the requisition against respondent no. 18 without putting the same vote was therefore illegal. Learned counsel for the Nagar Panchayat and the private respondents contended that if six persons during the meeting stated that they did not wish to pursue the “No Confidence Motion” that tantamounts to the “No Confidence Motion” failing as it did not find the requisite 3 number of support. No useful purpose shall be served by directing discussion on the “No Confidence Motion” and then arrive at the same conclusion. It was next contended that in absence of regulations the Government had issued executive instructions on 22.6.2009 with regard to conduct of proceedings under Section 25 of the Act which provided for secret ballot. The petitioner did not raise any objections of the present nature during consideration of the motion with regard to him and therefore waived any objections that he may have had both with regard to himself and respondent no. 18. Having been unseated he has no locus to raise any questions vis-à-vis respondent no. 18. It is not in controversy between the parties that the executive instruction issued on 22.6.2009 has been set aside by a Division Bench judgment of this Court as report in 2010 (3) PLJR 411 ( Ruby Singh Versus The State of Bihar & Others). The submission on behalf of the respondents that the Division Bench was considering the question of the meeting being chaired by the District Magistrate and not the issue of the manner in which the “No Confidence Motion” was to be tested, by show of hands or by secret ballot, did not fall for consideration, does not appeal to the Court. A judgment cannot be read by extracting lines from the judgment to decipher what it held and what it did not hold. A judgment has been read as a 4 whole. If the notification dated 22.6.2009 was held to be without jurisdiction, the entire notification goes. In ,(2003) 6 SCC 697 (Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka) it has been held at papragraph-2 as follows:- “2……The ratio decidendi of a judgment has to be found out only on reading the entire judgment. In fact, the ratio of the judgment is what is set out in the judgment itself. The answer to the question would necessarily have to be read in the context of what is set out in the judgment and not in isolation. In case of any doubt as regards any observations, reasons and principles, the other part of the judgment has to be looked into. By reading a line here and there from the judgment, one cannot find out the entire ratio decidendi of the judgment. We, therefore, while giving our clarifications, are disposed to look into other parts of the judgment other than those portions which may be relied upon.” If no regulations had framed under Section 421 of the Act and the statutory mandate in Section 50 of the Act was clear that voting at the motion was to be shown by show of hands, there is no occasion for the Court to read something in the statutory provision which is not there. The will of the Legislature has to prevail. The “No Confidence Motion” with regard to the petitioner having been tabled in a manner contrary to the statutory requirement is therefore not sustainable. If a requisition for a motion had been made, a meeting requisitioned, and as fairly acknowledged by the respondents, there is no provision for withdrawal of the requisition, there could have been no purported withdrawal of the requisition against respondent no. 18. 5 The requisition had to be put to test on the floor of the House. That the “No Confidence Motion” on a debate may not have been passed cannot be equated with the withdrawal of a requisition as was suggested on behalf of the respondents. It was like a bullet fire from a gun which cannot be put back in the gun. The resolution dated 1.7.2009 against the petitioner and permitting withdrawal of the requisition against respondent no. 18 are both held to be illegal. The entire resolution is set aside. Let a fresh meeting under the earlier requisition be convened within four weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before the Executive Officer, both with regard to the petitioner and respondent no. 18. to be tested on the floor of the House. The writ application stands allowed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)