IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9161 of 2009 PARWATI DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Shivaji Pandey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ajeet Kumar, Adv. For the Election Commission :- Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Nikesh, Adv. For Respondent no. 4:- Mr. Raju Giri, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, A.C. to G.P.12. ----------- 4. 25.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the appearing respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.7.2009 passed in Case No. 10 of 2009, unseating her from the post of Ward Commissioner, Ward No. 7, Nagar Panchayat, Rosera under Section 18(1)(n) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) on grounds of failure to attend three consecutive meetings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice for the first meeting dated 2.12.2008 was never served upon the petitioner. The impugned order itself acknowledges service upon another and there is no discussion for any satisfaction that it was received for and/or behalf of the petitioner. In so far as the meetings dated 29.1.2009 and 26.2.2009, it is submitted that the notices were not served upon the 2 petitioner in accordance with Section 49 of the Act, 72 hours prior to the scheduled date of the meeting. Counsel for the Commission submitted from the impugned order that a finding has been arrived at that the petitioner did not participate in three consecutive meetings. The petitioner does not deny the same and therefore the order requires no interference. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The Court in exercise of powers of judicial review is required to deal with the impugned order on basis of the discussions contained therein. The respondents, if they so desired could have filed a counter affidavit in support of the findings of fact contained in the order to convince the Court that though the recitals in the order may not be adequate, the records would demonstrate amply to the satisfaction of the Court. That too, the respondents have chosen not to do. The impugned order contains no discussions for the satisfaction of the Commission how the notice dated 28.11.2008 for the meeting to be held on 2.12.2008 is stated to have been served upon the petitioner. Who was Navin Kumar and what was his causal link with the petitioner? What was the basis on which the Commission was satisfied with the 3 service upon acceptance of notice by Navin Kumar was sufficient service upon the petitioner. The former was authorized to receive the notice or even that service on him amounted to constructive notice on the petitioner. In absence of any such discussion, there is no material to justify the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order that the petitioner had been given notice of the meeting to be held on 2.12.2008. In view of the finding arrived at by this Court, when the petitioner cannot be stated to have out failed to attend three consecutive meeting, the impugned order dated 27.7.2009 becomes unsustainable even it were to be presumed for the sake of discussion that the petitioner was noticed of the meeting dated 29.1.2009 and 26.2.2009. That question is left open on the submission of the petitioner that service of the latter two meetings was also not in accordance with Section 49 of the Act and there is no need for the Court to decide the same as the writ petition succeeds on the first point. The impugned order dated 27.7.2009 is set aside. The application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)