DHANANJAY KUMAR S/O RAMDEO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order of the State Election Commission, Bihar as contained in Memo No. 3859 dated the 27th November, 2009 and consequential order passed by the Collector, Nalanda dated 2.12.2009 as contained in Annexure-6/a. By the aforesaid orders, first the State Election Commission has arrogated to itself the authority to decide upon the validity of a no confidence motion passed in the Biharsharif Municipal Corporation against the Deputy Mayor. Having arrogated to itself the said power to adjudicate upon such a matter, it directs the District Magistrate to declare the removal of Deputy Mayor as wrong, illegal and contrary to statute which the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nalanda obliges without even caring whether they have such an authority in law or not.

(2.) Learned counsel for the State Election Commission and State have been heard. Biharsharif Municipal Corporation is also represented and has been heard.

(3.) The challenge of the petitioner is short and simple. He submits that upon a special resolution being brought for consideration of no confidence motion as against the Deputy Mayor of Biharsharif Municipal Corporation, a special meeting was duly convened. In the special meeting, all the 46 members were present including the Mayor who presided over the meeting. The motion having been put to vote, 23 votes were polled in favour of the no confidence motion. There were 21 votes opposing the motion. Two votes were declared invalid. Thus, 50% of the people who constituted the House voted in favour of the no confidence motion. The Deputy Mayor, thus, lost the confidence of the House. The Town Commissioner, Biharsharif Municipal Corporation then sent a report of these proceedings to the State Election Commission. The State Election Commission then assumed jurisdiction suo motu and arrogated powers to itself to adjudicate and decided the same ex parte holding that in fact the votes are not 50% majority as required by Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act. Having thus declared the removal of Deputy Mayor illegal, he directed the District Magistrate- cum-Collector to allow the Deputy Mayor to continue. The Collector has, thus, passed a consequential order holding that the removal of the Deputy Mayor is illegal and the Deputy Mayor would be deemed to be continuing in office.