BAIJU KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is one of the Councilors in Supaul Nagar Parishad constituted under the provisions of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 . His grievance is first the direction of the State Government (not the State Election Commission), dated 23.6.2009, as contained in Annexure-3/a as also against Annexure- 3 issued by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad dated 24.6.2009 in pursuance of Annexure-3/a. By the said two communications, the requisition of 18 Councilors to convene special meeting of the Councilors to decide upon vote of 'no confidence' so far as Chief Councilor and Deputy Chief Councilor are concerned has been refused.

(2.) Nagar Parishad, Chief Councillor and other parties have appeared. State has also appeared. Counter and rejoinder have been filed.

(3.) Petitioner submits that the elected body of Councilors of Supaul Nagar Parishad consists 31 in all, out of which 28 are elected and three are ex officio. 18 members filed a written requisition on 10th June, 2009 to the Executive Officer in terms of Section 25(4) of the Act for calling a special meeting for considering no confidence motion. In law there is no option given to the Executive Officer or the Chief Councilor in this regard and as the meeting was requisitioned by more than 1/3rd members, it was bound to be held. I may point out that there are basically two exceptions, firstly that 'no confidence motion' cannot be brought within two years of the election and the other it cannot be brought within one year of the motion being defeated. Here these two conditions do not arise in the present case. What happened thereafter is quite curious. The Executive Officer, who was bound to call and that too within fifteen days, a special meeting for the purpose of considering 'no confidence' against the Chief Councilor and the Deputy Chief Councilor, referred the matter to the State Government. There was no requirement in law to do so but apparently there was something else operating. The State Government by Annexure-3/a, dated 23.6.2009, as noted above, wrote that as the matter of disqualification of nine Councilors are to be considered, no special meeting can be convened. At the very outset, I may state that the State Government has no business to interfere in this matter notwithstanding Section 67 of the Act. The reliance of the State and the respondent-Nagar Parishad and others on Section 67 of the Act is misconceived on the face of it. Section 67, as contained in Chapter VII of the Act deals with the report and records. It has nothing to do with calling of special meeting. It must be remembered here that we are not dealing with employer-employee relationship. We are dealing with the rights of an elected body in a democratic set up where people govern themselves in the form of local self-government enshrined under Chapter IXA of the Constitution. Here an outside interference in the internal affair of the Parishad which is not called for and has to be decided by the elected members amongst themselves. This is not to be tolerated or permitted. The result of this exercise by the State was that the Chief Councilor and the Deputy Chief Councilor, who would otherwise face no confidence are being permitted to continue at the mercy of the State Government with this unauthorized intervention.