IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3438 of 2011 ASHA DEVI & ORS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 02. 07.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State, for the Nagar Parishad, Bhabua, and for the respondent no. 13. The petitioners are Ward Councilors of the Bhabhua Nagar Parishad, aggrieved by the “No Confidence Motion” considered on 12.2.2011 unseating the Chief Councilor by a “No Confidence Motion”. The contention is that no proper notice of the meeting dated 12.2.2011 was circulated in accordance with the statutory requirements of Section 49 of the Bihar Municipal Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as Ward Councilors they have statutory right to participate in the No Confidence debate. If notice is not circulated in accordance with statutory provisions, and the date of the meeting is not made known to them in time as per the statutory provisions, they are not only denied their statutory right to participate in the discussion, but it also amounts to an act contrary to the statutory provisions vitiating the “No Confidence Motion” discussed on 12.2.2011. The controversy with regard to holding of the 2 “No Confidence Motion” appears to have come to this Court earlier at the behest of the Chief Councilor himself in C.W.J.C. No. 2345 of 2001. It was disposed on 4.2.2011, directing the meeting in question to be held on 12.2.2011. The “No Confidence Motion” was then discussed against the Chief Councilor on his writ petition. The cause of action therefore was primarily individual to him. There can be no quarrel with the broad proposition advanced on behalf of the petitioners. But its applicability may depend and vary on the facts of a case. The Chief Councilor is already pursuing his remedies individually with regard to his ouster in L.P.A. No. 359 of 2011 pending before this Court. The grievance of the petitioners that they were not heard when C.W.J.C. No. 2345 of 2011 was disposed, despite being respondents including the legality of the meeting dated 12.2.2011 can all well be considered in the L.P.A. itself. This Court is not persuaded to generate multiplicity of litigations on the same cause of action. The Court finds no reason to interfere in the present writ petition in light of the aforesaid discussion. The application is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)