BIJAY KUMAR BIMAL, SON OF SRI PULKIT PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The present matter is under consideration by this Bench on a reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court, who was of the view that "Section 25(4) of the Act requiring a particular minimum number for a no confidence motion to be passed, would not mean that when 50% of the whole number of Councillors have voted one way, irrespective of the actual number of votes cast, the same would also Patna High Court CWJC No.13788 of 2016 dated 14-02-2017 3 be a case of 'equality of votes' as contemplated in Sec. 51(2) of the Act", which was contrary to the decisions of two co-ordinate Benches of this Court as reported in Sanjay Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2015(1) PLJR 394] and Rajeshwar Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2012(2) PLJR 525].

(3.) The short facts of the case according to the reference order are that pursuant to a requisition for bringing a no confidence motion against the Chief Councillor and Deputy Chief Councillor of Nagar Parishad, Madhepura which was constituted of a total 26 elected Ward Councillors at the relevant time, a special meeting under Sec. 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (for short, "the Act") was held on 05.08.2016. Out of the 26 members, 15 attended the meeting and the petitioner no. 1 was nominated by the attending members to preside over the special meeting. After discussions, the no confidence motion was put to vote. Out of the votes cast, 13 votes were in favour of the no confidence motion, one vote was cast against the motion, while one ballot paper was blank and hence declared invalid. It was claimed by the petitioner no. 1 that this resulted in an equality of votes, there being 26 members in all, and therefore he had a right to a casting vote in terms of Sec. 51(2) of the Act, which right he was, however, prevented from exercising by the respondent no. 5. After counting, the respondent no. 5 declared the no confidence motion to have failed in the absence of majority of votes being in Patna High Court CWJC No.13788 of 2016 dated 14-02-2017 4 favour of the motion.