SHYAM SUNDER RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition a prayer has been made for of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification of the State Government, Department of Urban development, dated 25-3-1998, as contained in Annexure 5 whereby the old elected body of Giridih Municipality in the year 1989 was allowed to function and the previous decision dated 23-6-1995 regarding dissolution of the municipal Board was cancelled.

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The general election of Giridih Municipality as per the provisions of the unamended Act, 1922 was conducted on 22-1-1989 and the election of the Chairman thereof was held on 15-5-1989 in the first general meeting of the Board of the Municipality. Admittedly the term of five years of the elected body was complete on 30-5-1994 and the grace period of six months as provided under the old Act had also expired on 30-11-1994. Therefore, the State Government in exercise of its power conferred under S. 29 of the unamended Act, by the notification dated 23-6-1995 dissolved the Municipal Board and by another notification dated 30-6-1995 appointed Special Officer to carry out business of the Municipality until afresh election in terms of the amended Municipal laws. The notification regarding appointment of Special Officer was later superseded by another notification dated 19-9-1996 whereby Sri Jai Mangal Singh was appointed as a Special Officer. Copies of the abovementioned notifications are Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition.

(3.) Later, the notification dated 23-6-1995 regarding dissolution of the Municipal board was challenged by one Raj Kishore Ram before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 2389 of 1996 (R). It was alleged although the Municipal Board had completed the term of five years as on 30-5-1994, but by virtue of the impugned dissolution of the Board, the elected members were not allowed to avail the grace period of six months from the date of its expiry and, therefore, the alleged dissolution was arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction. Apart from the aforesaid a reference was also made to a decision of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar 1995 (2) PLJR 719 that before dissolution of a Municipal Board as would appear from S. 385 of the amended Act they were entitled for an opportunity of hearing before recording any order for dissolution. Hence the impugned dissolution without extending any opportunity of hearing to the member of the dissolved Board was illegal and arbitrary. The Court taking into consideration the above circumstances by the order dated 13-8-1997 quashed the notification. The respondent State thus has come forward with the impugned notification dated 25-3-1998 whereby the dissolved Municipal Board was again revived.