GUPTESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a Ward Councillor of Ward No. 3 of Nagar Parishad, Bikramganj in the district of Rohtas. It is his case that though one Rub Nawaz Khan (added as respondent No. 9), who was elected as the Chief Councillor of the said Nagar Parishad, stands removed with a resolution of No Confidence Motion carried out against him in accordance with the provisions under Sec. 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007(for short 'the Act') read with Bihar Municipal NoConfidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 (for short 'the Rules'), the State Election Commission, Bihar (for short 'the SEC') has declined the request made by the Ward Councillors of the said Nagar Parishad for holding a fresh election for the said post of Chief Councillor, by an order dtd. 17/2/2022.

(2.) In the present writ application, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the aforesaid order dtd. 17/2/2022, passed by the SEC. The petitioner is seeking a declaration from this Court that since the proceeding of the special meeting held on 27/7/2021 containing resolution of carrying No Confidence Motion against the said respondent No. 9 has not been challenged by him on any ground and it is not his case that the special meeting was convened without service of memo of charge/ allegations against the Ward Councillors, the SEC lacks jurisdiction to refuse the request for holding election to the post which fell vacant, consequent upon passing of No Confidence Motion, in violation of the provision under Rule 2(ix) of the Rules. In addition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the District Magistrate, Rohtas to fix a date of meeting of the elected Ward Councillors, in exercise of power under Rule 93 of the Bihar Municipal Election Rules, 2007 for election to the vacant post of Chief Councillor which is vacant since 27/7/2021.

(3.) Upon perusal of the impugned order dtd. 17/2/2022 it transpires that the SEC, upon considering the materials before it, has arrived at a conclusion that the No Confidence Motion against the Chief Councillor cannot be said to have been validly brought in accordance with the statutory provision, rather the same was in breach of statutory prescription under Rule 2(iv) of the Rules, and, therefore, the SEC could not treat the post of Chief Councillor vacant, requiring the SEC to hold election for the said post. The SEC, in its order dtd. 17/2/2022, has further recorded that unless a special meeting for No Confidence Motion was convened afresh and a resolution of No Confidence Motion was passed in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure, no election could be notified by the SEC, treating the post of Chief Councillor as vacant.