Patna High Court - Orders
Sanjay Kumar Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 October, 2014
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13263 of 2014
======================================================
1. Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of Mohan Prasad Singh, Resident of Digha
Ghat, Patipul, P.S. - Digha, District - Patna (Ward no. 1).
2. Ashok Kumar, son of Ramswarup Prasad, Resident of Quarter No.
174, P & T Colony, Kidwaipuri, Patna (Ward no.25).
3. Shyam Babu Yadav, son of Mitlal Yadav, Resident of Dakshini
Mandiri Kath Pul, Behind Durga Mandir, P.S.- Budha Colony, District
- Patna (Ward no. 26).
4. Deepak Kumar Chaurasiya, son of Shri Ganga Prasad, Resident of
Khajpura, P.O.- B.V. College, P.S. - Shashtrinagar, District - Patna
(Ward no. 2).
5. Sudhir Kumar, Son of Late Raghunandan Prasad, Resident of Noorpur,
P.O. - Katra Bazar, P.S. - Malsalami, District - Patna (Ward no. 72).
6. Ram Nath Chaudhary, Son of Shri Lakhan Chaudhary, Resident of
Dadar Mandi, P.O. - Gulzarbag, P.S. - Alamganj, District - Patna
(Ward no. 57).
7. Smt, Seeta Sinha, Wife of Shri Ramanand Prasad Singh, Resident of
Pitambar Mandir, Gulzarbag, P.S. - Alamganj, District - Patna (Ward
no. 54).
8. Dharmendra Prasad, Son of Late Dhirendra Bahadur Prasad, Resident
of Harnahatola, Devi Asthan, P.O. - Jhauganj, P.S. - Khajekala,
District - Patna (Ward no. 63).
9. Babita Devi, Wife of Shri Santosh Kumar, Resident of Narwasmangal
Akhara, P.O. - Begumpur, P.S. - Malsalami, Patna City, District- Patna
(Ward no. 69).
10. Pushpa Devi, Wife of Ravindra Kumar resident of Narwaspind, P.O. -
Begumpur, P.S. - Malsalami, District - Patna (Ward no. 68).
11. Taruna Rai, Wife of Rajesh Kumar, Resident of Sindhi Dalan, P.O.-
Jhauganj, P.S. - Khajekala, District - Patna (Ward no. 65).
12. Abhilasha Devi, Wife of Pramod Kumar, Resident of Sandalpur, P.O. -
Mahendru, P.S. - Bahadurpur, District - Patna (Ward no. 47).
13. Sheela Devi, Wife of Ram Preet Mehta, Resident of Malahi Pakri, P.O.
- Lohiyanagar, P.S. - Kanakarbag, District - Patna (Ward no. 33).
14. Kishmati Devi, Wife of Haricharan Mahto, Resident of Choti Pahari,
Rasidachak, Jakaripur, P.O. - Badi Pahari, P.S. - Agamkuan, District -
Patna (Ward no. 56).
15. Avinash Kumar, Son of Shri Shyam Babu Rai, Resident of Sarishtabad
(West), P.S. - Gardanibagh, P.O. - Anishabad, District - Patna (Ward
no.14).
16. Jeet Kumar, Son of Shri Arjun Prasad, Resident of Bhikhachak, P.O. -
Anishabad, P.S. - Gardanibagh, District - Patna (Ward no. 13).
17. Reena Devi, Wife of Deepak Kumar, Resident of Chitkohra Basti,
P.O. - Anishabad, P.S. - Gardanibagh, District - Patna (Ward no. 12).
18. Mukesh Kumar, Son of Nawal Kishore Prasad, Resident of
Chandanpur Bela, P.O. - G.P.O. P.S. - Jakkanpur, District - Patna
(Ward no. 17).
19. Amrawati Devi, Wife of Dinanath, Resident of Manik Chandra Talab,
P.O. - Anishabad, P.S. - Gardanibagh, District - Patna (Ward no. 11).
20. Urmila Singh, Wife of Ramsher Singh, Resident of Yarpur, Shivaji
Path, P.S. Gardanibagh, P.O. - G.P.O., District - Patna (Ward no. 15).
Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 2
21. Rekha Devi, Wife of Shri Nagina Rai, Resident of Sipara, P.O. -
Delwa, P.S. - Beur, District - Patna (Ward no. 30).
22. Premlata Devi, Wife of Shri Jai Prakash Singh, Resident of Saristabad
(East), P.S. - Gardanibagh, P.O. - Anishabad, District - Patna (Ward
no. 16).
23. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Shri Bulkan Ram, Resident of Maa Dulari Kunj,
Pakka Kuan, Bhawar Pokhar, P.S. - Pirbahore, District - Patna (Ward
no. 39).
24. Hemlata Verma, Wife of Arvind Kumar Verma, Resident of Shiv
Colony, Raza Bajar, P.O. - B.V. College, P.S. - Shashtrinagar, District
- Patna (Ward no. 5).
25. Seema Verma, Wife of Shri Nageshwar Prasad Sinha, Resident of
Mohalla - Ghagha Ghar, P.O. - Mahendru, P.S. - Sultanganj, District -
Patna (Ward no. 49).
26. Asha Devi, Wife of Shri Ramakant Kumar, Resident of Adarsh
Colony, West Patel Nagar, P.S. - Shashtri Nagar, District - Patna
(Ward no. 8).
27. Reeta Rai, Wife of Late Shyam Sundar Rai, Resident of Kazipur
Nayatola , P.O. - Bankipur, P.S. - Kadamkuan, District - Patna (Ward
no. 42).
28. Dhanraj Devi, Wife of Shri Krishna Kumar Singh, Resident of Keshri
Nagar, P.O. - Keshri Nagar, P.S. - Patliputra, District - Patna (Ward
no. 6)
29. Prameela Verma, Wife of Ravindra Kumar Verma, Resident of New
Area, P.S. - Kadamkuan, District - Patna (Ward no. 43).
30. Meena Kumari, Wife of Shri Shiv Sahni, Resident of Chak
Mussallahpur, Koiri Tola, P.O. - Mahendru, P.S.- Kadamkuan, District
- Patna (Ward no. 48).
31. Balram Chaudhary, Son of Late Madan Gopal, Resident of Gujri
Bazar, P.O. - Jahuganj, P.S. - Khajekala, District - Patna (Ward no.
60).
32. Kumar Sanjeet, Son of Late Naresh Chandra Sinha, Resident of A/136,
Housing Colony, P.O. and P.S. - Kankarbagh, District - Patna (Ward
no. 34).
33. Pinky Yadav, Wife of Late Sujeet Kumar, Resident of Nawratanpur,
Post Park, P.S. - Kankarbagh, P.O. - GPO, Patna..
34. Pushpa Singh, Wife of Prasoon Kumar, Resident of A-247 peoples
Co-operative Colony, P.O. - Lohanipur, P.S. - Kankarbagh, District -
Patna.
35. Archana Rai, Wife of Shri Ranjeet Yadav, Resident of Chiraiya Tand,
P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Kankarbagh, District - Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Principal
Secretary, Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Patna Municipal Corporation through the Municipal
Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Building,
Patna.
3. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya
Lok Building, Patna.
4. Shri Roop Narayan Mehta, Deputy Mayor, Patna Municipal
Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 3
Corporation Office, Maurya Lok Building, Patna.
5. The Chief Councillor (Mayor), Patna, Patna Municipal Corporation
Office, Maurya Lok Building, Patna.
6. Shakuntala Devi, Wife of Nagina Chaudhary, Resident of Gram
Rupaspur, P.O. - Dhanuat, P.S. - Rupaspur, District - Patna (Ward
no.3).
7. Smt. Abha Lata, Wife of Ramesh Kumar, Resident of Sherullahpur,
Nandgawn, P.O. & P.S. - Shashtrinagar, District - Patna (Ward no. 4).
8. Smt. Pramila Singh, Wife of Anil Singh, Resident of Shivpuri, near the
Nala, P.O. & P.S. - Shashtrinagar, District - Patna (Ward no. 7).
9. Smt. Arti Devi, Wife of Sugambhar Paswan, Resident of Kaushal
Nagar, House No. 32, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Hawai Adda, District -
Patna (Ward no. 9).
10. Baleshwar Singh, Son of Punit Mahto, Resident of Purandarpur, P.O. -
G.P.O. , P.S. - Jakkanpur, District - Patna (Ward no. 18).
11. Smt. Sunaiya Devi, Wife of Sanjay Kumar, Resident of Mithapur,
Khagaul Road, P.S. - Jakkanpur, District - Patna (Ward no. 19).
12. Vinod Kumar, Son of Janak Prasad Singh, Resident of Punaichak, near
Punjab National Bank, P.S. - Shashtri Nagar, District - Patna (Ward
no. 20).
13. Smt. Pinky Kumari, Wife of Ranjeet Kumar, Resident of New
Punaichak, Boring Canal Road, P.S. - Srikrishnapuri, District - Patna
(Ward no. 21).
14. Sanjeev Kumar, Son of Arjun Prasad, Resident of 2D/180, New
Patliputra Colony, District - Patna (Ward no. 22).
15. Smt. Prabha Devi, Wife of Pramod Kumar Singh, Resident of Ganga
Apartment, Anandpuri, P.S. - Srikrishnapuri, District - Patna (Ward
no. 23).
16. Smt. Gyanwati Devi, Wife of Anil Kumar, Resident of Chakaram
(Near Kabristan), P.O. - G.P.O. P.S. - Buddha Colony, District - Patna
(Ward no.24).
17. Shri Krishna Murari Yadav, Son of Late Jayadin Chaudhary, Resident
of Golghar Park Road, P.O. - G.P.O. , P.S. - Gandhi Maidan, District -
Patna (Ward no. 27).
18. Shri Tota Chaudhary, Son of Late Balkishun Chaudhary, Resident of
R.M.S. Colony, Chamartoli, P.S. - Kankarbagh, District - Patna (Ward
no. 32).
19. Arun Kumar Chaudhary, Son of Late Ram Nath Chaudhary, Resident
of Lalji Tola, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Gandhi Maidan, District - Patna
(Ward no. 36)
20. Smt. Dharmsheela Devi, wife of shri Ashok Yadav, Resident of
Behind I.M.A. Hall, Salimpur Ahra, P.O. - Kadamkuan, P.S. - Gandhi
Maidan, District - Patna ( ard no. 37).
21. Smt. Shushma Sahu, Wife of Shri Ram Lagan Sahu, Resident of Sahu
Sadan, in Front of Bihar Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Kadamkuan, P.S. -
Kadamkuan, District - Patna (Ward no. 38).
22. Smt. Sahjadi Begum, Wife of Taufiq Alam, Resident of Jahan House,
Dariyapur Road, Sabjibagh, P.S. - Gandhi Maidan, District - Patna
(Ward no. 40).
23. Shri Arjun Kumar Yadav, Son of Damodar Yadav, Resident of Arjun
Kutir, Babu Tola Lane, Gobind Mitra Road, P.O. - Bankipur, P.S. -
Pirbahore, District - Patna (Ward no. 41).
Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 4
24. Smt. Sudha Devi, Wife of Vijay Kumar Singh, Resident of Yogipur
Lohiya Nagar, Old Stamp House, P.S. - Patrakar Nagar, Kankarbagh,
District - Patna (Ward no. 43).
25. Smt. Prabha Devi, Wife of Late Jagannath Singh, East Chitragupt
Nagar, P.O. - Lohiyanagar, P.S. - Patrakarnagar, District - Patna (Ward
no. 45).
26. Shri Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Son of Lallan Prasad, Resident of
Mohalla - Nand Lal Chhapra, P.O. - Manoharpur, Kachauara, P.S. -
Ram Krishna Nagar, District - Patna (Ward no. 46).
27. Md. Neyaz, Son of Late Badharul Hasan, Resident of Dargah Road,
P.O. - Mahendru, P.S. - Sultanganj, District - Patna (Ward no. 50).
28. Shri Jai Narain Verma, son of not known, Resident of Jagannath Singh
Lane, Chaudhary Tola, P.O. - Mahendru, P.S. - Sultanganj, District -
Patna (Ward no. 51).
29. Smt. Gulfisha Zabi, Wife of Md. Samsuddin Hasan, Resident of Sakka
Toli Morh, Gulzarbagh, P.S. - Alamganj, District - Patna (Ward
no.53).
30. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Shri Krishna Kant Prasad, Resident of
Kumharar Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S. - Agamkuan, District -
Patna (Ward no. 55).
31. Shri Vinod Kumar, Son of Hari Nandan Prasad, Resident of
Maharajganj, P.O. - Gulzarbagh, P.S. - Alamganj, District - Patna
(Ward no. 58).
32. Smt. Mumtaz Zahan, Wife of Md. Zaved, Resident of Tarni Prasad
Lane, P.S. - Khajekala, District - Patna (Ward no. 59).
33. Shri Shiv Kumar, Son of Shri Ram Dhani Prasad, Resident of Bahri
Begumpur, Yar Pokhra, P.O. - Begumpur, P.S. - Bypass, District -
Patna (Ward no. 62).
34. Md. Mohamadu Kurashi, Son of Md. Faqruddin Kuraishi, Resident of
Chauk Toli, Mangalpur, Jhauganj, District - Patna (Ward no. 64).
35. Kanti Devi, Wife of Ravindra Prasad Singh, Resident of Puagali, P.O.
- Patna City, P.S. - Alamganj, District - Patna (Ward no. 66).
36. Shri Manoj Kumar, Son of Shri Gopal Prasad, Resident of Kila Road,
Kaima Shikoh, P.O. - Jhauganj, P.S. - Chauk, District - Patna (Ward
no. 67).
37. Smt. Roona Devi, Wife of Shri Ajay Kumar, Resident of East
Nandtoli, P.O. - Madhav Mills, P.S. - Malsalami, District - Patna
(Ward no. 70).
38. Shri Shekhar Singh, son of not known, Resident of Bundtoli, P.O. -
Patna City, P.S. - Malsalmi, District - Patna (Ward no. 71).
39. Shri Sunil Kumar, son of Late Shyam Nandan Rai, Resident of
Paharpur, P.O. - Anishabad, P.S. - Gardanibagh, District - Patna.
40. Shri Vinay Kumar @ Pappu, Son of S.N. Yadav, Resident of
Goriyatoli, Station Road, District - Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11668 of 2014
======================================================
Vinay Kumar Pappu, Son of Dr. S.N. Roy Yadav, resident of Goriatili,
Station Road, P.O- G.P.O, P.S- Kotwali, District- Patna, Bihar.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 5
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner -cum- Principal
Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna, Patna Municipal Corporation,
Mauryalok Building, Patna.
3. The Deputy Mayor, Patna, Patna Municipal Corporation Office,
Maurya Lok, Patna.
4. The Chief Councillor (Mayor), Patna, Patna Municipal Corporation
Office, Maurya Lok Building, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11849 of 2014
======================================================
Sunil Kumar, Son of Late Shyam Nandan Rai, resident of Mohalla-
Paharpur, Ward No.10, Police Colony (Anisabad), Police Station-
Gardanibag, District- Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development &
Housing, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary -cum- Director, Department of Urban
Development & Housing, Bihar, Patna.
4. The State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna through its
Commissioner, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna.
5. The Secretary, State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate -cum- District Election Officer, Patna.
7. The Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok, Patna.
8. The Chief Executive Officer -cum- Municipal Commissioner, Patna
Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok, Patna.
...... Respondent 1st Set
9. Shri Afzal Imam, son of Md. Shahabuddin, resident of Alamganj, Ward
No.52, Pathan Toli, Police Station- Alamganj, District- Patna, the Chief
Councilor, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok, Patna.
10. Shri Roop Narayan, Son of Ram Narayan Prasad, resident of
Mehnadiganj, Police Station- Mehandiganj (Patna City), District- Patna,
the Deputy Chief Councilor, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya
Lok, Patna.
.... .... Respondents 2nd Set.
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No.13263 of 2014)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ashish Giri
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Rajiv Roy, GP-5
For the Corporation : Mr. H.S. Himkar
For respondent nos.16,21,39 & 40: Mr. Pranav Kumar
(In CWJC No.11668 of 2014)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. with
Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 6
Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Md. Anisul Haque, AC to AAG-9
For the Respondent no.3 : Mr. Mrigank Mauli
For the Respondent no.4 : Mr. S.B.K. Manglam
(In CWJC No.11849 of 2014)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh
Mr.Ram Binod Singh
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar,GA-10
For the Corporation : Mr. H.S. Himkar
For State Election Authority : Mr. Amit Srivastava
Mr. Girish Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
C.A.V. ORDER
6 09-10-2014Three writ petitions have been filed seeking reliefs which are all connected with the no confidence motion moved by the Ward Councillors of the Patna Municipal Corporation on 26.6.2014 and which ended in a tie with 36 of the Councillors voting in favour of the motion seeking ouster of the Chief Councillor while two votes were declared invalid, one going in favour of the Chief Councillor and the others abstaining from voting.
The petitioners in CWJC No.13263 of 2014 have prayed for the following reliefs:
i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus to declare and hold that the resolution of no confidence motion against the Chief Councillor has been deemed to be passed in the special meeting held on 26.06.2014 and further Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 7 respondent no.6 be restrained from holding the post of Chief Councillor/Mayor of Patna Municipal Corporation.
ii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the findings of the Presiding Officer (Deputy Mayor) in the proceeding dated 26.6.2014, to the extent that the motion of no confidence has failed against the Chief Councillor (as contained in Annexure-3).
iii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to recount the votes (39) which were polled in the special meeting dated 26.6.2014 and after recount it may be declared that no confidence motion brought against the Chief Councillor has been passed and further it may be held that two votes were wrongly rejected as invalid.
iv) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 (Deputy Mayor) to exercise his powers u/s 51(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 to caste the tie-
breaker (casting vote), to resolve the so called tie Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 8 that has occurred during the no confidence motion brought against the Mayor of Patna Municipal Corporation.
v) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus to declare in alternative that meeting of no confidence motion held on 26.6.2014 being illegal and a fresh meeting of no confidence motion be directed to be held on the same set of requisition without having the bar of one year as provided u/s 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
vi) To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The petitioner in CWJC No.11668 of 2014 has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondent no.3, i.e. the Deputy Mayor to exercise his casting vote under section 51(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) and break the tie.
The petitioner in CWJC No.11849 of 2014 while questioning the decision of the Deputy Chief Councillor taken in the special meeting held on 26.6.2014 whereby the motion had Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 9 been dropped, has also prayed for a similar direction requiring the Deputy Chief Councillor, i.e. the Deputy Mayor to exercise his casting vote to break the tie and is accompanied with an alternative prayer of declaring the motion passed with 36 councillors voting in favour of the no confidence motion.
Since the prayer made in CWJC No. 13263 of 2014 takes within its fold the reliefs prayed in the other writ petitions hence I would be referring to the pleadings and, the Annexures made in the said writ petition unless clarified with specific reference to the other writ petitions.
Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel has appeared on behalf of the petitioners in CWJC No.13263 of 2014, Mr. Kali Das Chatterjee, learned senior counsel has appeared on behalf of the petitioner in CWJC No.11668 of 2014 and Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel has appeared in the third writ petition. The State is represented by respective State Counsel while the Municipal Corporation is represented by Mr. H.S. Himkar. The Chief Councillor is represented by Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Mr. Mrigank Mauli has appeared for the Deputy Mayor, Mr. Girish Pandey has appeared for the State Election Commission and Ms. Mahashweta Chatterji and Mr. Pranav Kumar have appeared for the contesting respondents.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 10
Notice was issued in the admission matter to the remaining Ward Councillors who have been served through the Municipal Commissioner but despite service only respondent nos.9, 10, 14, 30, 32, 33 and 34 have appeared through Ms. Mahashweta Chatterjee while respondent nos.16, 21, 39 and 40 have appeared through Mr. Pranav Kumar.
The facts of the case is in a very narrow compass. A requisition was presented before the Chief Councillor -cum- Mayor, Patna Municipal Corporation by 33 Ward Councillors on 16.6.2014 requesting him to fix a date for special meeting for bringing a no confidence motion against him under section 25(4) of „the Act‟ on the allegations/reasons mentioned therein. A copy of the requisition dated 16.6.2014 is placed at Annexure-1. The Chief Councillor (the Mayor) accepting the request of the Ward Councillors fixed the date of special meeting on 26.6.2014 and communicated the same vide letter no.4076 dated 21.6.2014 which was circulated by the Secretary, Patna Municipal Corporation vide letter no.4101 dated 24.6.2014 as contained in Annexure-2. The special meeting was to be held at Shri Krishna Memorial Hall at Patna. The meeting was attended by 44 Councillors out of which one Councillor left the proceedings and out of 43 Councillors present, only 39 participated in the secret Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 11 ballot which followed the discussion held in respect of the allegations which formed the basis for the no confidence motion. Since the no confidence motion was moved against the Chief Councillor (the Mayor) hence the respondent no.4, i.e. the Deputy Chief Councillor (Deputy Mayor) presided over the meeting in terms of the provisions underlying section 51(1) of „the Act‟. The proceedings of the special meeting has been enclosed at Annexure-3 and which manifests that of the 39 Ward Councillors who participated in the secret ballot, 36 voted in favour of the no confidence motion moved for removal of the Chief Councillor, two ballots were held invalid suffering from infirmities and one vote was poled in favour of the Chief Councillor. Since there was a tie with 36 out of total 72 elected Ward Councillors voting in favour of the motion hence petitioner Vinay Kumar Pappu requested the Presiding Officer, i.e. the Deputy Mayor to exercise his casting vote in terms of section 51(2) of „the Act‟. The proceedings appended at Annexure-3 manifests that the casting vote was not exercised by the Presiding Officer and as a consequence the no confidence motion was declared as „failed‟. It is being aggrieved by the outcome of the no confidence motion held on 26.6.2014 and on the failure of the Presiding Officer to exercise the casting vote that the petitioners Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 12 have moved this Court.
Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in CWJC No.13263 of 2014 has led the arguments and has summed up the relief in the following manner:
(a) That 36 out of 39 Ward Councillors present and voting in favour of the motion, it should be declared passed;
(b) There should be a recount of the two votes which were held invalid;
(c) The Presiding Officer, i.e. the Deputy Mayor should be directed to exercise his casting votes in terms of section 51(2) of „the Act‟; and
(d) Since the no confidence motion has suffered an infirmity on account of failure of the Presiding Officer to exercise the casting vote, the requisitionists be permitted to move afresh in the matter.
In support of the reliefs prayed for declaring the motion passed Mr. Giri relied upon the provisions of sections 25(4) and 50(4) of „the Act‟ read with rule 2(vi) of the Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as „the No Confidence Motion Rules‟) Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 13 and has submitted that since the substantive provisions of section 25(4) of „the Act‟ provides for a special meeting to be held in the manner prescribed and rule 2(vi) of „the No Confidence Motion Rules‟ framed under section 25(4) of „the Act‟ provides for a quorum as per section 50 of „the Act‟ hence the result of the motion would be decided on the basis of majority of the votes cast by the Councillors present and voting as per section 50(4) of „the Act‟. Proceeding herefrom it was submitted that since 36 out of 39 Ward Councillors present had voted in favour of the no confidence motion moved to oust the Chief Councillor it should be declared as passed and thus the declaration made by the Presiding Officer that the motion had failed, is unsustainable.
With respect to the relief regarding recount of the two invalidated votes Mr. Giri referred to rule 82 of the Bihar Municipal Election Rules, 2007 to submit that the grounds for rejection of vote poled has been mentioned thereunder and thus the Returning Officer is duty bound to record his reasons for rejecting the ballot which cannot be at his whims and fancy. Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1999)7 SCC 359 (Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Sriyanesh Knitters), Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 14 more particularly paragraphs 11 to 13 to submit that even if the provisions of section 25(4) of „the Act‟ or the No Confidence Motion Rules‟ do not provide for recording of reasons, in such circumstance, a reference to the Bihar Municipal Election Rules, 2007 would be perfectly justified.
The third limb rather the main thrust of the argument of Mr. Giri and the other learned counsel has been for directing the Deputy Mayor -cum- Presiding Officer to cast his decisive vote and break the tie in the light of the statutory provisions underlying section 51(2) of „the Act‟, which vests the Presiding Officer with a power of exercising the casting vote in case of tie. I would not be faltering in observing that this issue is the sheet anchor for the petitioners and the batch of writ petitions mainly revolve around this issue. It is the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Presiding Officer not only has a right to vote as a member-Ward Councillor but in case of a tie he is vested with a statutory power to cast an additional vote as a Presiding member, to break the tie. Mr. Giri in support of his submission has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court reported in 2012(2) PLJR 525 (Rajeshwar Prasad vs. State of Bihar), more particularly paragraphs 17 to 22 thereof. It is Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 15 argued by Mr. Giri that a special meeting cannot be allowed to end in a tie and it is for this purpose that the legislature has cast a responsibility on the Presiding member to break the tie by exercising his casting vote as a presiding member which is in addition to his right to vote as a Ward Councillor. It is the submission of Mr. Giri that the Presiding Officer who is the Deputy Mayor in the present case cannot shirk from this responsibility nor can waive of his right and he is duty bound to cast his decisive vote. According to Mr. Giri the mandate under section 51(2) is absolute and has to be performed.
Mr. Giri has next referred to a letter of the Municipal Commissioner addressed to the State Election Commission dated 28.6.2014 placed at Annexure-4 to submit that it was in the pandemonium prevailing at the voting venue that the Presiding Officer could not discharge his statutory obligation and which fact has been communicated by the Municipal Commissioner. It was contended that since it was in peculiar circumstance where the atmosphere was surcharged that the Presiding Officer could not perform his statutory duty and hence he is liable for an appropriate direction to break the impasse by casting his vote as a Presiding Officer. In fact Mr. Giri relying upon the Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 16 communication of the Municipal Commissioner has contended that where the meeting could not be taken to its logical conclusion in the light of the statutory provisions, it cannot be held valid and hence the requisitionists should be permitted to move afresh in the matter in the peculiar circumstances existing.
The arguments of Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel and Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel appearing in the other writ petitions are also mainly directed against the failure of the Presiding Officer to discharge his obligation and it is their contention that appropriate directions be issued to the Presiding Officer to discharge this obligation.
Mr. H.S. Himkar, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation has submitted that the meeting was disrupted due to invasion by outsiders and thus could not end on a conclusive note.
Mr. Mrigank Mauli has appeared for the Presiding Officer, i.e. the Deputy Mayor and has filed a short counter affidavit in CWJC No.11668 of 2014. The counter affidavit deals with the issue of rejection of two votes as well as on the issue regarding his failure to cast the decisive vote. Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 17 In so far as the invalidation of two ballots is concerned, the Presiding Officer has conveniently stated that he does not recall the reasons for rejection. In so far as his failure to exercise the casting vote is concerned, the Presiding Officer cum the Deputy Mayor while admitting that the petitioner Vinay Kumar Pappu reminded him of his obligation to cast his decisive vote but has scurried under the cover of pandemonium prevailing at the venue of voting to submit that given a chance he would exercise his casting vote.
Mr. S.B.K. Manglam has appeared for the Chief Councillor as well as respondent nos.7 and 12 and with reference to section 25(4) of „the Act‟ it is submitted that the provision is self-contained and provides that the conduct of business of special meeting is to be done in the manner prescribed. He submits that the conduct of business of a special meeting has to be done as per the prescription provided under „the No Confidence Motion Rules‟ and the general provisions relating to conduct of business provided under Chapter-VII of „the Act‟ would stand excluded. It is submitted that a complete procedure is provided under rule-2 of „the No Confidence Motion Rules‟ and wherever any help is taken from „the Act‟, it is categorically mentioned therein Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 18 as is manifest from rule 2(iii) and (vi) of „the No Confidence Motion Rules‟. He thus submits that since the rules specifically framed for the purpose do not make reference to section 51, the reliance by the petitioners on section 51(2) is misconceived and the said provision would stand excluded. It is the contention of Mr. Manglam that in view of the conscious exclusion to the applicability of section 51 in the „No Confidence Motion Rules, the petitioners cannot rely upon the same. Proceeding on his argument it was contended that section 51 of „the Act‟ is a provision governing general meeting and since a no confidence motion is to be moved in a special meeting, it would have no applicability and the conduct of business is to be regulated by rule 2 of „the No Confidence Motion Rules‟.
Mr. Manglam has referred to rule 2(ii) of the „No Confidence Motion Rules‟ to submit that this provision itself takes care of the provisions of section 51 of „the Act‟ without making any reference thereto and yet does not give any power on the Presiding Officer to exercise a casting vote. According to Mr. Manglam, there is no reason to rely on section 51(2) of „the Act‟ especially where the rule is silent on the issue. He submits that there is no occasion for the Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 19 Presiding Officer to exercise his casting vote when the „No Confidence Motion Rules‟ specially framed in this regard neither provides as such nor takes any help of section 51(2) of „the Act‟. Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2013)11 SCC 451 (Rohitash Kumar vs. Om Prakash Sharma) and with reference to paragraphs 11 to 19 thereof has submitted that when the statute provides a mode and manner of performance of a particular Act, it has to be done in that manner alone and all other modes are forbidden.
In support of his submissions that no mandamus can be issued in present circumstance, where a discretion is vested in the Presiding Officer, learned counsel has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Educare Charitable Trust vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2014 SC page 902.
Responding to the issue of rejection of votes Mr. Manglam with reference to a photo copy of the two rejected ballots submits that there is no reason to doubt the rejection.
Responding to the argument of Mr. Giri that the motion had been passed by reason of the majority of the Councillors present and voting in favour of the Motion in Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 20 view of the provisions underlying section 50(4) of „the Act‟, it is argued by Mr. Manglam that section 50(4) of „the Act‟ is not at all applicable to special meeting and which is manifest from the caveat appearing in the provision i.e. "save as otherwise provided in this Act". He submits that since section 25(4) of „the Act‟ mandatorily requires that a motion can be passed only by the majority of elected Councillors voting, this requirement would have an overriding effect on the provisions of section 50(4) of „the Act‟.
Responding to the alternative prayer made by the petitioners regarding seeking permission to move afresh it is contended that since the motion has failed hence the bar under the second proviso to section 25(4) of „the Act‟ would prevail.
Answering the Court‟s query on the conclusion drawn in the judgment reported in 2010(1) PLJR 272 (Pawan Kumar Purvey vs. State of Bihar) which stood affirmed by the Division Bench in the case reported in 2010(3) PLJR 411 regarding a special meeting being a general meeting with a special agenda, it was submitted that the judgment was rendered at a stage when the „No Confidence Motion Rules‟ had not been framed and thus the Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 21 stage stands changed for its applicability. Concluding his argument it was submitted that since the Presiding Officer has declared the motion as having failed it does not require a recount.
Ms. Mahashweta Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents who have abstained from the meeting has adopted the argument of Mr. Manglam while Mr. Pranav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for some of the requisitionists has seconded the arguments advanced by Mr. Giri.
Mr. Giri in his short reply to the arguments of Mr. Manglam has submitted that the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge in the judgment passed in the case of Pawan Kumar Purvey at paragraphs 8 and 9 is a conclusion independent of the Rules. It is submitted that the provisions of section 51 cannot be ousted and would have an overriding effect on the „No Confidence Motion Rules‟ framed to effectuate the provisions of the Act. It was contended that since the Rules did not cater to a circumstance where the meeting ended in a tie, that section 51 of „the Act‟ would come into play.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 22 have perused the materials on record.
I would be dealing with the issues as raised by learned counsel for the contesting parties in terms of the relief claimed by the petitioners, one by one and for the purpose I would first take up the relief prayed by the petitioners to declare the motion passed.
Section 25(4) and section 50(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 run as follows:
"25. Removal of Chief Councillor/ Deputy Chief Councillor.-
... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
(4) The Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor may be removed from office by a resolution carried by a majority of the whole number of Councillors holding office for the time being at a special meeting to be called for this purpose in the manner prescribed, upon a requisition made in writing by not less than one-third of the total number of Councillors, and the procedure for the conduct of business in the special meeting shall be such as may be prescribed."
... ... .... ...
... ... .... ....
"50. Quorum for transaction of business at a meeting of Municipality and method of deciding question.
... .... .... ...
... ... .... ...
(4) All matters required to be decided at a
meeting of the Municipality shall, save as otherwise provided in this Act, be determined by a majority of votes of the Councillors present and voting."Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 23
Rule 2(vi) of the Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010 runs as follows:
"2. No Confidence Motion brought under Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 against the Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor shall be considered and disposed of as per the following process:-
.... .... .... ....
.... ..... ..... .....
(vi) Quorum for the meeting shall be as per
the provision of Section 50 of the Bihar
Municipal Act, 2007"
(Emphasis is mine)
Whereas section 25(4) of „the Act‟ categorically requires a motion to be supported by a majority of the whole number of elected Councillors holding office for the time being at a special meeting to be called for the purpose in the manner prescribed, rule 2(vi) of the „No Confidence Motion Rules‟ provides that the quorum for the meeting shall be as per the provisions of section 50 of „the Act‟. Section 50(2) of „the Act‟ while providing for a quorum consisting of 1/5th of the total number of members to be present, further mandates in section 50(4) that all matters would be decided at the meeting by a majority of votes of the Councillors present and voting „save as otherwise provided in the Act'. The language is explicit and excludes the numerical requirement of section 25(4) of „the Act‟ from its operation. Meaning Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 24 thereby unless a resolution is passed by a majority of the total number of elected Councillors at a special meeting convened for such purpose in terms of section 25(4) of „the Act‟ read with the provisions of „No Confidence Motion Rules‟, the motion cannot be declared passed. Hence merely that a majority of the elected members present in a special meeting voted in favour of motion would be of no use unless they constitute a majority of a total number of elected Councillors.
This issue is no more res-integra and stands decided by the Division Bench of this Court in a judgment rendered in L.P.A. No.1160 of 2014 dated 11.9.2014 (Vibha Devi Vs. State) and reference is made to the following paragraphs of the judgment:
"18. Thus, the provision, contained in sub-section (4) of section25 of 2007 Act, clearly convey that a special meeting shall be convened if one-third of the total number of Councillors give requisition, in writing, for a special meeting to discuss a motion of no confidence against the Chief Councillor and a Chief Councillor shall stand removed from his/her office if a resolution is carried out by a majority of the whole number of Councillors at a special meeting, which may be requisitioned, as indicated hereinbefore.
21. The question, in the case at hand, is: who could have presided over the special meeting in the present case?
22. Our quest for an answer to the above question brings us to sub-section (1) of Section 51 of 2007 Act, which makes it clear that a meeting, which section 51(1) of 2007 Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 25 Act, perceives includes a special meeting and the first proviso coupled with the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 51 of 2007 Act show that when a special meeting is held to consider a motion of no confidence for removal of the Chief Councillor, the Chief Councillor shall not preside over such a special meeting and when the special meeting is convened for the removal of both, Chief Councillor and Deputy Chief Councillor, the members present shall choose one of the members to preside over the special meeting. It was, therefore, permissible, in a case of present nature, for the members to elect one of their members to preside at the special meeting.
25. Thus, when a motion of no confidence is brought against the Chief Councillor, the meeting shall be presided over by the Deputy Chief Councillor and if the office of the Deputy Chief Councillor falls vacant or he is absent, the special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence brought against the Chief Councillor shall be presided over by the member, who may be elected for the purpose by the Councillors.
26. In the case at hand, the writ petitioner-appellant does not challenge the legality of the special meeting, which had been requisitioned. What is contended, on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant, is that there is no prescribed quorum for the purpose of special meeting nor is there any provision for adjournment of special meeting.
27. The submissions, so made on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant, ignores clause
(vi) of Rule 2 of 2010 Rules inasmuch as clause (vi), in no uncertain words, lays down that quorum, for a special meeting, shall be as per provisions of Section 50 of 2007 Act and sub-Section (1) of Section 50 of 2007 Act lays down that quorum, necessary for the transaction of business, at a meeting of the Municipality, shall be one-third of the total number of elected Councillors. However, in Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 26 order to remove the Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor, the motion of no confidence shall be carried out, in the light of sub-Section (4) of Section 25 of 2007 Act, by majority of Councillors.
(Emphasis is mine) In view of the legal position discussed and the conclusion drawn by the Division Bench in the case of Vibha Devi (supra), it remains a formality to hold that the prayer made by the petitioners to declare the motion passed merely because 36 out of 39 elected Councillor had voted in favour of the motion, becomes untenable and is rejected.
This would bring this Court to the second relief prayed by the petitioners regarding recount of the votes. This Court taking into consideration the nature of dispute listed the matter on 25.9.2014 and when the counsel for the Municipal Corporation was directed to produce the ballots in a sealed cover and pursuant whereto the ballots were produced in a sealed cover before the Court on 26.9.2014 for perusal by the Court as well as the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties. Since there was no contest as regarding the 36 ballots which were cast in favour of the motion, the Court examined the two invalidated ballots and was convinced that it had been rightly rejected inasmuch as neither of the two votes gave any declaration either for or against the motion. Whereas one of the Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 27 ballots had no mark of the seal, the other had the seal planted at the place of signature of the Presiding Officer. The two ballots were handed over to learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents for perusal and who could not pinpoint any infirmity in the decision of the Presiding Officer to reject the same. In the circumstances discussed, the relief prayed by the petitioners questioning the rejection of the ballots becomes unsustainable and is hereby rejected.
This would bring this Court to the third and most contesting issue canvassed before the Court regarding the failure of the Presiding Officer -cum- Deputy Mayor to discharge his obligation cast under section 51(2) of „the Act‟. Although Mr. Manglam has sought to question the applicability of the provisions of section 51(2) of „the Act‟ to a special meeting on the anvil that in absence of any reference made to the said provisions in „the No Confidence Motion Rules‟, it would have no applicability but in my opinion the argument of Mr. Manglam is fallacious for „the No Confidence Motion Rules‟ is silent on the issue of a „tie‟ and thus where the Act specifically provides an answer to such issue, a mere silence of the Rules on this aspect would not control the statutory provision nor take away its applicability.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 28
The judgment of Pawan Kumar Purvey stands affirmed in the judgment of the Division Bench reported in 2010(3) PLJR 411. That the judgment was rendered when the Rules governing a special meeting were yet to be framed would have no impact. The opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge at paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment categorically holds that every meeting is a general meeting except that a meeting for considering a no confidence motion is a general meeting with a special agenda held under the nomenclature of a special meeting. Moreover in view of the decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Rajeshwar Prasad and Vibha Devi (supra) the applicability of section 51 of „the Act‟ to a special meeting is no more open for contest.
The legal position having been discussed it is to be seen whether a mandamus can be issued for directing the Presiding Officer -cum- Deputy Mayor to break the impasse by casting his decisive vote.
The proceeding of the special meeting is placed at Annexure-3 and takes note of the request of the petitioner Vinay Kumar Pappu before the Presiding Officer to exercise his discretion and cast his vote but he has refused to accept the request and has proceeded to hold the motion as having „failed‟ Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 29 in absence of a clear majority in favour of the motion. Although the petitioners have tried to argue that it is due to pandemonium that the Presiding Officer -cum- Deputy Mayor was precluded from discharging his statutory obligation and which is also the stand of the Presiding Officer -cum- Deputy Mayor in the counter affidavit but the minutes of the proceeding as contained in Annexure-3 does not reflect any such circumstance nor records any opinion of the Presiding Officer why he was precluded from casting the decisive vote or that it is due to the disorderly atmosphere that he failed in his legal duty. Even the letter of the Municipal Commissioner addressed to the State Election Commission present at Annexure-4 merely refers to the protest made by the Chief Councillor and his supporters but even while mentioning as such, the Municipal Commissioner has categorically recorded that the request made by the petitioner Vinay Kumar Pappu to the Presiding Officer for exercising his casting vote, was rejected by him. In such circumstances the plea taken by the petitioner as well as the Presiding Officer -cum- Deputy Mayor before this Court that the Presiding Officer was precluded from casting a decisive vote due to the pandemonium prevailing at the venue, is neither reflected in the proceedings of the special meeting nor is Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 30 reflected in the letter of the Municipal Commissioner rather is apparently an afterthought by the Presiding Officer.
In this regard I would be referring to section 52 of „the Act‟ which casts certain responsibilities on the Presiding Officer for preservation of order during a meeting. Sub-section (2) thereof vests sufficient power in the Presiding Officer to direct any Councillor to withdraw from the meeting where his conduct is grossly disorderly. Section 52(4) of „the Act‟ further vests power in the Presiding Officer to adjourn the meeting in case of grave disorder. As I have noted hereinabove, neither the documents on record support the stand of the petitioners or the Presiding Officer taken before this Court regarding being prevented from casting the decisive vote nor the proceeding reflect that the Presiding Officer discharged any power as vested in him under section 52(2) and (4) of „the Act‟ to bring order within the house or to adjourn the meeting on grounds of disorderly behaviour. On the contrary the minutes of the special meeting clearly reflect that the suggestion of petitioner Vinay Kumar Pappu was rejected by the Presiding Officer who went on to declare that the motion had „failed‟. Such being the position, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners in so far as they have tried to project a helplessness in the Presiding Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 31 Officer to cast his decisive vote stands unsupported by the documents as well as his conduct.
In the circumstances discussed above whether this Court would issue a mandamus to the Presiding Officer to cast his decisive vote and whether he is statutorily bound to cast the decisive vote under section 51(2) of „the Act‟ as prayed by the petitioners.
In my opinion the right vested in the Presiding Officer under section 51(2) of „the Act‟ is discretionary and in which circumstance no mandamus can be issued by this Court to the Presiding Officer to exercise discretion in a particular manner. Learned counsel for the petitioners are not correct in their submissions that the Presiding Officer is statutorily bound to vote in case of a tie. A statutory right vested in the Presiding Officer under section 51(2) of „the Act‟ to cast a vote also accompanies a right not to cast a vote and which is a decision against the motion and in the present context, a discretion exercised in favour of the incumbent Chief Councillor.
The provisions of section 51(2) of „the Act‟ while preserving the right in a Presiding Officer to exercise his casting vote also gives him an option for such exercise. Whereas the right vested in the Presiding Officer is preceded by word „shall‟, Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 32 its exercise is preceded by the word „may‟, meaning thereby, that even if a right to cast a decisive vote vests in the Presiding Officer he may or may not exercise his discretion and his refusal to exercise the discretion would impliedly mean a vote cast against the motion.
The petitioners have proceeded on a premise that should the Presiding Officer cast his decisive vote, it would only be in favour of the motion. This is rather a presumptuous thinking of the petitioners even when there is a conscious rejection of such request by the Presiding Officer as reflected in the minutes of the special meeting dated 26.6.2014 which declares the motion as „failed‟ as well as in the letter of the Municipal Commissioner present at Annexure-4 coupled with the failure of the Presiding Officer to exercise his power vested under sections 52(2) and 52(4) of „the Act‟.
The circumstances discussed hereinabove is a clear reflection of the fact that the Presiding Officer has had a change of opinion in between the date of special meeting held on 26.6.2014 and the stand taken before this Court. He certainly cannot be permitted to have a shifting stand. In the circumstances discussed, the relief prayed by the petitioners seeking a mandamus to the Presiding Officer to cast the decisive Patna High Court CWJC No.13263 of 2014 (6) dt.09-10-2014 33 vote cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected.
This brings me to the last of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners and in view of the recording by the Presiding Member in the special meeting held on 26.6.2014 placed at Annexure-3 that the motion had failed, which declaration suffers from no infirmity, any liberty prayed for by the petitioners to move afresh can only be in terms of the statutory provisions underlying section 25(4) of „the Act‟.
In result the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-
U