IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15317 of 2010 SONI DEVI, WIFE OF SRI PRADEEP SINGH, RESIDENT OF GANPAT BIGHA, WARD NO. 3, HILSA, P.S. HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA AT PRESENT CHIEF COUNCILLOR OF HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT HILSA, P.S. HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA ------ PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA, BIHARSHARIF 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 6. SRI SARYUG PRASAD, SON OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO. 3 OF HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 7. SMT. AWANTI DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO. 2, OF HILSA, NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 8. SRU UMESH PRASAD, SON OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO. 4, HILSA NAGAR, PANCHAYAT HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 9. SMT. MEERA DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.5, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 10. SRI SURENDRA KUMAR, SON OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.6, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 11. SRU JANAK PASWAN, SON OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.7, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 12. SRI RANJEET KUMAR RAWAT, SON OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO 8 , HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 13. SMT. SUNITA DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.9, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 14. SRI GAGAN KUMAR, SON OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.10, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 15. SMT. ASHMA KHATOON, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.11, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 16. SMT. RITA DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.12, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 17. SMT. SADHNA DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.13, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 18. SMT. VEENA KUMARI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.14, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 19. SMT. SAKRA KHATOON, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.15, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 20. SMT. SUNITA DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.16, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 21. SMT. ALPANA DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.17, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 22. SRI BALRAM PRASAD, SON OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.18 , HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 23. SRU UDAY KUMAR, SON OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.19, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 24. SRI SUKHDEO PRASAD, SON OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.20, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 2 25. KUMARI SIYAMANI SINHA, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.21, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 26. NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD, SON OF NOT KNOWN, WARD COUNCILLOR OF WARD NO.22, HILSA NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA ------- RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :- Mr. S. Azeem, Advocate Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Anil Kumar, G.P. 22 ----------- 2 13.9.2010 Counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter in course of the day. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-4 which was addressed to the Chief Councillor of Hilsa Nagar Panchayat, signed by 1/3 members of the Boa rd under the Bihar Municipal No-Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 . By the impugned notice, it was decided that the members of the Council wish to pass a No-Confidence Motion against the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said notice was issued through the Chief Executive Officer who does not have the power to requisition a meeting. For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision repoted in 2006(1)BLJR129. In the case referred to, the Executive Officer had received the requisition for initiating No-Confidence Motion which was received by the Executive Officer and for removal of the petitioner of that case. The Court held that the Executive Officer could not accept a requisition for a meeting of No- Confidence however, the Court also held that since the copy of the 3 notice was with the petitioner, it did not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that he did not recive the original copy of the notice. It appears that the facts of this case would not be relevant to the present case. In fact it supports the case of the other side rather than the case of the petitioner. Referring to Section 2(ii) of the Bihar Municipal No-Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 which envisages that “The Special Meeting shall be presided over by the Chief Councillor, if the No-Confidence Motion is against the Deputy Chief Councillor and shall be presided by the Deputy Chief Councillor, if the No-Confidence motion is against the Chief Councillor and if it is against both the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor, the meeting shall be presided over by the Councillor elected for the purpose by the Councillors in the meeting. In case of post of Deputy Chief Councillor being vacant or in his absence from the meeting convened for discussion on No-Confidence Motion against the Chief Councillor or the post of the Chief Councillor being vacant or in his absence from the meeting convened for discussion against the Deputy Chief Councillor, the meeting shall be presided over by the member elected for the purpose in the meeting by the Councillors.” This Court, therefore, comes to the conclusion that the provisions of the Act have not been contravened by issuing the notice in the manner in which it was done. Obviously the person against whom No-Confidence Motion is to be instituted can hardly be expected to issue notices to the Councillors for holding a 4 meeting to remove himself from the post of the Chief Councillor or Deputy Councillor. The second question which is of greater importance in this case is that whether the petitioner received the notice of the said requisition? Annexure-3 is the objection filed by the petitioner before the Executive Officer in which it has been stated that a copy of the requisition by which the meeting is to be held on 14.9.2010 at 12’ O Clock in the afternoon has not been served on the petitioner. It is obvious that the petitioner got notice of the said meeting on 30.8.2010. However, a copy of the said requisition was not supplied to him. Mere knowledge that meeting is going to be held is insufficient, in view of the fact that the reasons for holding the meeting should also be brought to the knowledge of each of the Councillors. Clause 2 (i) of the Rules provides that the special meeting of the local body may be called within seven days from receipt of the requisition. In the circumstances, the requisition should be served both on the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor within one week of the receipt of this order by the Chief Executive Officer or any members of the Council who have received the Motion of No- Confidence to remove the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has instructions to undertake on his behalf that on receipt of the notice the Chief Councillor (petitioner) will fix a date of the meeting within fifteen days from the date of receiving the requisition as contained in Annexure-4. 5 This order means that obviously no meeting should be held for removal of the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor on 14.9.2010. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of FAX for communicating this order to the District Magistrate, Nalanda, Biharsharif and the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Hilsa, District Nalanda in course of the day. The office will transmit the order on priority basis. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)