VINAY KUMAR "PAPPU" © BINAY KUMAR "PAPPU" S/O LATE DR.SURENDRA NATH RAI YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order dated 2.4.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 8603 of 2009.

(2.) The expose of facts which are imperative to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that the writ petitioners- respondents no. 37 and 38 to this appeal were elected as Chief Councillor and Deputy Chief Councillor of Patna Municipal Corporation under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (for brevity 'the Act'). A requisition was moved for holding a special meeting for considering No-Confidence Motion against them in the absence of the rules as required under the Act. A circular under Memo No. 2360 dated 22.6.2009 was issued by the State Government stipulating that when a requisition is moved for removing the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor simultaneously, it shall be the duty of the District Collector to fix a date and also his obligation to preside over the meeting. It is worth noting that at the time the requisition was moved, the said circular had not come into existence. The Chief Councillor fixed the date on 14.7,2009 for holding a special meeting. The Town Commissioner of the Corporation then informed the District Magistrate that in view of the aforesaid circular dated 22.6.2009, he was required to preside over the meeting. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna authorized an Additional District Magistrate to preside over the meeting. As is manifest from the material on record, the meeting was held on 14.7.2009 and the Chief Councillor lost the confidence of the House by 39 to 30 votes whereas the Deputy Chief Councillor lost the confidence of the House by 42 to 28 votes. As the vacancies came into existence, information was sent to the State Election Commission (for short 'the Commission') and the Commission announced the date and programme for fresh election of the Chief Councillor and Deputy Chief Councillor.

(3.) The said respondents, being grieved by the aforesaid action, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ Court directed stay of the election by way of issuing an interim direction.