VIBHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, counsel for some of the requisitionists and Mr. Rabindra Priyadarshi for the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution dated 10.7.2014 whereby the special meeting held for considering the motion of no confidence, has been adjourned to 23.7.2014 for want of quorum. Copy of the resolution is placed at Annexure-6.

(2.) Mr. Manglam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the statutory provisions underlying Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which provides for holding a special meeting to consider a motion of no confidence in the manner prescribed. Mr. Manglam next has referred to the Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") framed under Sections 25(4) and 419 of the Act and with reference to Rule 2(v) he submits that there is no room for any adjournment for want of quorum and that once a date of special meeting has been held then even if the quorum is not complete, the meeting cannot be adjourned and has to be decided on the basis of the Councillors present and voting. He thus submits that since the provisions of Section 25(4) of the Act provides that the special meeting for considering a "no confidence motion" is to be held in the manner prescribed and Rule 2(v) framed thereunder provides that a meeting held in this regard has to conclude on the same day after discussion and holding secret ballot, the resolution dated 10.7.2014 adjourning the special meeting to 23.7.2014 is contrary to statutory provisions. As regarding the statutory provisions underlying Section 50 of the Act providing for quorum for transaction of business at a meeting of Municipality, learned counsel has submitted that the said provision is relatable to meeting held under Section 48 and not to special meeting held in pursuance of Section 25(4) of the Act. He submits that where the Act requires the meeting to be held in the prescribed manner and the manner prescribed does not refer to maintenance of a quorum, the special meeting could not have been adjourned.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. The argument advanced by Mr. Manglam is fallacious.. Sub-rule 2(vi) of the Rules specifically provides that quorum of the special meeting for considering a "no confidence motion" should be as per the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. Section 50 of the Act runs as under:--