SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three writ petitioners were the Ward Councilors of Sugauli Nagar Panchayat and pursuant to the orders of the State Election Commission passed in terms of Section 18(1)(n) on a complaint by respondent no. 5, Lal Babu, having been removed from the Council, have filed this writ petition. Section 18(1)(n) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 provides that if a Councilor is absent in three consecutive meetings without permission of the Councilors or abandon at a meeting then he is liable to be removed.

(2.) Counter affidavits have been filed including on behalf of the State Election Commission. Respondent No. 5 has appeared. Having heard the parties at length this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

(3.) Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam who appears on behalf of the petitioners, pressed short issues, though a number of issues have been raised in the writ petition. He refers to the supplementary show cause as was filed before the State Election Commission, which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is not in dispute that this supplementary show cause was indeed filed. In the supplementary show cause, it was specifically averred that so far as meeting dated 28.11.2008 is concerned, they had no valid notice. If this fact be correct then the very foundation for an action under Section 18(1)(n) vanishes. In support of the said assertion in the supplementary show cause, grounds are clearly mentioned. In respect of one, it is pointed out that the notice is shown to have been served on Izhar Alam, who is 11 years old nephew. In another case, the notice was served on Ajit Kumar, who is a nephew living separately. So far as Tabasum Ara is concerned, there is specific denial that lady is an adult member of the family. The notice is thus irivalidly served and, as such, there cannot be infraction and Section 18(1)(n) would not apply. With reference to the order of the State Election Commission, it is submitted that nowhere these issues have at all been noticed, much less discussed. All that is discussed is that notice was issued 72 hours prior to the date of meeting.