KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has made two prayers. First is for quashing the requisition filed by respondent nos. 7 to 14 addressed to her whereby they made a request to convene the special meeting of the Nagar Parishad for consideration of no confidence motion against her and the second to hold that since there is no candidate other than the petitioner suitable for the post to be elected as Chief Councillor, the notice of motion brought against her is non est. By way of filing interlocutory application vide IA No. 2576 of 2018, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated 27.03.2018 issued under the signature of respondent no.5 whereby he has issued notice of special meeting to be convened on 03.04.2018 for consideration of no confidence motion against the petitioner.

(2.) The only ground for challenging the requisition filed by respondent nos. 7 to 14 is that the same was not filed in accordance with the requirement of Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act of 2007') and Rule 2(i) of the Bihar Municipal No-confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 (for short 'the Rules of 2010') . Mr. S. B. K. Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the requisitionist Councillors were required to directly submit their no confidence motion to the Chief Councillor but the same was submitted to her through the office of the Executive Officer which is contrary to law. Hence, the same cannot be acted upon. He submitted that the petitioner is the elected Chief Councillor of the Mahua Nagar Panchayat which has been reserved for the female of scheduled caste under Section 29 of the Act of 2007. He submitted that the said Nagar Panchayat is constituted by 16 Ward Councillors from 16 territorial wards. Out of 16 wards only two were reserved for scheduled caste category out of which one was for scheduled caste (general) and the ward no.5 from which the petitioner got elected was reserved for scheduled caste (female) . Since the post of Chief Councillor is reserved for female scheduled caste category voting on no confidence motion would be of no consequence.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in compliance with the Rules of 2010 the special meeting of the elected Councillors was requisitioned and the same was given to the Chief Councillor. After receiving the notice it was incumbent upon him to issue notice of no confidence motion within seven days from the date of requisition and convene the meeting within 15 days of the date of issuance of notice. Since the petitioner failed to issue notice within the stipulated date and time, the meeting has been called by the requisitionists as per provision of Section 48(3) of the Act of 2007. He submitted that in case the motion is carried out the petitioner would be removed from the office and shall not be eligible for re-election as Chief Councillor, Deputy Chief Councillor or Councillor during the remaining term of such municipality in terms of Section 25(6) of the Act of 2007.