NARMADESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Sri Narmadeshwar Prasad Singh one of the Commissioners of Gaya Municipality who is also its Chairman. The petitioner has challenged Annexure '6' which is a show cause notice under Section 385 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') from respondent No. 1 the State- of Bihar, asking the petitioner and the other Municipal Commissioners to show cause as to why the Gaya Municipality should not be superseded for the reason stated in the said notice at Annexure '6' dated 8th January, 1975.

(2.) The petitioner's case, inter alia, is that after a long period of supersession the election of the Commissioners of Gaya Municipality was held in July, 1972 at which 32 ward commissioners including the petitioner and one Kanhaiva Lal Chaurasia were elected and two more were later co-opted by the elected ward commissioners. Kanhaiva Lal Chaurasia was elected as the President and the petitioner as the Chairman of the Municipality. Bv a letter dated 26th August 1974, addressed to the petitioner, the said Kanhaiya Lal Chaurasia sent his resignation from the office of the ward commissioner. However, by another letter dated the 30th August, 1974. Chaurasia wanted to withdraw the aforesaid resignation-The said resignation letter of Sri Chaurasia was put up for consideration of the commissioners in accordance with Section 33 (3) of the Act on 25th November, 1974 and was accepted by a resolution passed at the meeting of the commissioners. According to the petitioner, the resignation was unconditional. Thereafter, Sri Chaurasia filed two petitions dated 5th December, 1974 and 13th December, 1974 before the District Magistrate, Gaya, Praying for stay of the operation of the aforesaid resolution which according to the petitioner, was still pending before the District Magistrate. On 19th December, 1974, the petitioner and some other commissioners filed a rejoinder to the aforesaid petitions of Sri Chaurasia before the District Magistrate. During the pendency of the aforesaid petitions. Sri Chaurasia personally approached Sri Rama Ashrav Prasad Singh, respondent No. 3, who is Minister. Urban Development. Government of Bihar and filed a petition before him to stay the operation of the resolution dated 25th November, 1974, whereby the resignation of Sri Chaurasiya had been accepted. It is alleged that respondent No. 3. Sri Ram Ashray Prasad Singh illegally and arbitrarily passed an order on the said petition of Sri Chaurasiya Staying the execution of the above-mentioned resolution dated 25th November, 1974 and the said order was communicated vide memo No. 7357/U. D. D. dated the 18th December, 1974 of the Under Secretary to the Government of Bihar, respondent No. 4 to the District Magistrate, Gaya -- vide Annexure '5'. It has further been alleged that respondent No. 3 acted mala fide in passing the aforesaid order at Annexure '5' mainly because he was displeased with and biased against the petitioner for the following amongst other reasons, namely, that 1. the petitioner had worked against Sri Ram Ashray Prasad Singh in his election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from Kurtha Assembly Constituency; 2. the petitioner had participated in a meeting to condole the death of one Sri Jaadeo Prasad, who had been killed in a police firing in 1974 and had strongly pleaded for an impartial probe into the facts and circumstances leading to the firing and killing of Sri Jagdeo Prasad; and

(3.) the younger brother of the petitioner, Sri Mahesh Prasad Singh had worked hard against Sri Ram Ashrav prasad Singh in his election to the All India Congress Committee and the petitioner refused to persuade his brother not to work against him. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order dated the 18th December, 1974. contained in Annexure '5' in C. W. J. C. No. 30 of 1975 of this Court. The said petition was admitted on 17th January, 1975, and a rule was made returnable by 6th February 1975. In the meanwhile, according to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 mala fide and illegally got a notice for supersession of the Municipality issued and served by the State Government on the Commissioner of the Municipality, which notice is contained in Annexure '6' and it has been challenged in this application, as stated above. 3. When this application was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the parties wanted that C. W. J. C. No. 30 of 1975 may also be heard along with this petition. Accordingly, both the applications were heard one after the other, as some of the questions involved were common.