DELAY SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate appearing in support of this writ petition, the J.C. to Govt. Pleader No. VI appearing for the State and Mr. S.S. Asghar Husain, Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no. 5; also heard Mr. S.S. Nayar Husain, learned Senior Advocate representing one set of intervenors and Mr. Sanjay Kumar appearing for another intervenor.

(2.) ON 10.6.2001 the petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the newly constituted Zila Parishad, Arrah. The Zila Parishad consists of 58 members in which the number of elected members is 31. On 28.9.2001 twelve members of the Parishad made a requisition for convening a special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner (the Chairman), and the Vice Chairman. No special meeting, however, could materialise on the basis of that requisition. Then on 29.10.2001, another requisition was made by 10 members for holding a special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner and the Vice Chairman. In pursuance of the requisition, dated 29.10.2001 the Dist. Magistrate convened a meeting on 27.10.2001 (sic ''27.11.2001 ?) in which the motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioner and the Vice Chairman with 18 members voting in favour of the motion and note (sic ''none ?) voting against it. The petitioner was, thus, removed from the elected office of Chairman of the Zila Parishad.

(3.) WHEN this court reopened after the X -mas holidays, the petitioner filed an amendment petition on 7.1.2002 in which prayers were made to implead respondent no. 5 as a respondent who was elected as the new Chairman of the Zila Parishad and to quash the entire proceedings of the meeting of 31.12.2001. The writ petition along with the amendment petition was taken up for the first time on 10.1.2002. On that date, the prayer made in the amendment petition were allowed and an interim order was passed making the election of respondent no. 5 subject to the final result of this case and further directing that during the pendency of this case all financial transactions of the Zila Parishad will be made by the Dist. Development Officer who was the Executive Officer of the Parishad and not by respondent no. 5. However, from that order it appears that at that stage it was not brought to the notice of the court that though praying for the quashing of the proceeding of the meeting held on 31.12.2001, the petitioner had himself fully participated in it; that he had contested the election and had lost to respondent no. 5.