RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Petitioner, who is the Vice Chairperson of Giridih Nagar Parishad elected on 4th May, 2013, has challenged the initiation of no confidence motion as directed to be voted upon before the prescribed authority i.e. the Additional Collector, Giridih-cum-Presiding Officer (respondent no. 3) under the directions of the competent authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih through the impugned order contained in memo no. 367 dated 25th Feb., 2016 (Annexure-4). 17 out of 30 Councilors moved an application for no confidence motion whereupon the impugned direction has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. Petitioner has made the challenge to the impugned action on the following grounds:-

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-State and the private respondents have supported the impugned action. It is pointed out that the amendment to the Rules of 2014 removing the requirement of acting as a Chairperson for moving a no confidence motion has been notified on 22nd Oct., 2014 and gazetted on 5th Nov., 2014. The amendment has, therefore, been promulgated and has come on the statute book, though the original Rule has later on been gazetted on 11th Feb., 2015. The original rule has been notified on 28th Aug., 2014 and has been gazetted on 11th Feb., 2015. The impugned action has been taken much after the aforesaid amendments have been gazetted and the petitioner cannot take the benefit of aforesaid proposition that before the gazette notification of original rules on 11th Feb., 2015 the amended Rules 3(1) notified on 22nd Oct., 2014 would be of no legal consequence. Therefore, there was no requirement of committing acts while acting as Chairperson on the part of the petitioner for the no confidence motion to lie. It is submitted that the Rules of 2014 specify the procedure which is just, fair and reasonable. Before the no confidence motion is laid on the table of the House, the Presiding Authority i.e. Additional Collector in the present case appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih has to satisfy himself about the admissibility of the charges forming part of no confidence motion moved by the aggrieved Councilors. That exercise has been done by the Additional Collector as is apparent from the enclosed Annexure-G dated 3rd March, 2016 to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 4 and Annexure-E to the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is submitted that after the satisfaction of the admissibility of the charges by the prescribed authority in the present case, the exercise of no confidence motion has also been carried out on 11th March, 2016 within fifteen days from the date of receipt of impugned communication dated 25th Feb., 2016 on 29th February 2016 by the prescribed authority i.e. the Additional Collector, Giridih. The motion has been put to vote but the results thereof have been kept in sealed cover in terms of the interim order dated 11th March, 2016 passed by this Court. Impugned actions are, therefore, fully in consonance with the letters of law contained in Rules of 2014 with its amendments carried out on 22nd Oct., 2014. It conforms to the procedure prescribed under the Rules. Petitioner cannot allege violation of principle of natural justice as the motion itself is carried out in his presence after discussion though he does not have a right to vote. Therefore, there are no procedural irregularity or illegality in the entire exercise warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review. Respondent no. 4 has supported the said submissions and have also filed their counter affidavit.