SINDHU JAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge in the present writ application was initially to the notice dtd. 8/9/2016 issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Tikari, fixing 15/9/2016 the date and 12 o'clock the time for holding of a special meeting to consider the 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner, who was the Chairman of the said Nagar Panchayat. Subsequently, due to various developments having taken place during the pendency of the writ petition, by way of amendment, the passing of the 'No Confidence Motion' on 15/9/2016 was also allowed to be challenged in the present writ application and the further relief for quashing the notice dtd. 28/9/2016, fixing 7/10/2016 for holding the meeting for election of the new Chairman was also allowed. When the said meeting was held on 7/10/2016 and the respondent no. 11 was elected as the Chairman, the same was also sought to be challenged by way of an amendment which was also allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the materials on record and the evidence filed on behalf of the Nagar Panchayat, Tikari, it would be clear that for the first time, the petitioner can be said to have been aware of the requisition for holding a special meeting to consider the 'No Confidence Motion' against her was on 2/9/2016. It was submitted that in terms of the provisions of Sec. 2(i) of the Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), such requisition signed by not less than one third of the total numbers of the elected Councillors has to be given to the Chief Councillor and thereafter the Chief Councillor is required to issue notice for the special meeting within 7 days from receipt of requisition and further, the meeting shall be convened within 15 days of the date of issuance of the notice. He submitted that such provision leads to the obvious implication that the 7 days period, as contemplated in the said Rule can, at best, be counted from 2/9/2016 and adding 7 days to the same would mean that the time for the petitioner, being the Chief Councillor, to issue notice was till 9/9/2016. He submitted that only thereafter i.e., 10/9/2016 onwards, in terms of Rule 2(iii) of the Rules, the requisitionists could themselves fix a date and can convene the meeting. He submitted that in the present case such convening by the requisitionists was on 8/9/2016 itself i.e., before the expiry of the time which the statute provides to the Chief Councillor for issuing notice convening such meeting. He submitted that once the statutory provisions are not complied with, all subsequent acts shall be deemed to be nullity. He further submitted that by way of abundant caution, he has challenged the subsequent development, right till election of the respondent no. 11 as the Chairman of the said Nagar Panchayat, though in law, he may not have been required to do so on the principle of lis pendens and as the matter was pending before the High Court, there was no fault or laches on his part if subsequent developments have taken place and further that law safeguards the interest of a person who approaches a particular forum and due to the systematic delay, the cause of the person who has approached the said forum in time, cannot be allowed to suffer.