LAXMI NARAIN SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed by eight petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, making a number of prayers in paragraph 28 of the application. We will refer to the prayers after giving the relevant facts on which the writ application is based. It is stated that the Government of Bihar had issued a notification dated 18th December 1970 under the order of the Government of Bihar duly authenticated by Sri E. G. Roy, Under Secretary to the Government, appointing the petitioners as nominated members of Katihar Municipality in exercise of the power contained in Section 14 (1) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. 1922. A copy of this document has been given In Annexure 1, and it appears that the notification is without any number or date. The number and date is of the Memo, the Memo no. being 8700 dated 18th December 1970, and it appears that copies of it were sent to different authorities, including the officers of Katihar Municipality for necessary action. It is stated that a copy of the Government order was sent to the petitioners by the Chairman of Katihar Municipality by a Memo dated 28th December 1970 a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 2. It Ss stated that the Chairman fixed 5th January 1971 as the date for holding a meeting of the Commissioners. The election of the members of the Municipality, which had to be completed, had taken place on 23rd May 1970, and the results had been announced immediately thereafter. The names of the elected commissioners had been published in the Bihar Gazette on 18th November 1970. It is stated that while the commissioners of the Municipality were preparing to hold a meeting for the election of the Chairman, a communication was sent by the Sub-divisional officer, Katihar on the 4th January 1971, stating that a telephonic message had been received from the Under-Secretary, Government of Bihar, L. S. G. Department, to the following effect:

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a fit case in which this particular prayer should be granted. The petitioners had been nominated or appointed under Section 14 (1) on or about the 18th December 1970 and up to this day their appointments have neither been cancelled, nor recalled, nor withdrawn. Sufficient opportunity has been availed of by the respondents for doing the needful thereafter, including following the provision of Section 14 (2) of the Municipal Act. The provision of Section 14 (2) not having beer complied with up to now, a writ of mandamus must issue to the respondents to publish the names of the petitioners in the Official Gazette forthwith. The writ application is, therefore, allowed to the extent mentioned above. In the circumstances, however the parties will bear their own costs of this court.