Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It is noted at this stage, that the said reasoned order of the SEC dated 17.02.2022 has been passed in the light of an order of this Court dated 22.12.2021, passed in CWJC No. 17990 of 2021.

5. It is noteworthy at this juncture that the Municipal Administration Directorate of the Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar has issued letter No. 1535 dated 25.03.2022, addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Bikramganj recording therein that the Chief Councillor of Nagar Parishad shall function till a fresh No Confidence Motion is brought and carried against him in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The State Government has taken note of the aforesaid findings recorded by the SEC on the point of removal of the Chief Councillor after passing of resolution of No Confidence Motion as is being claimed in the present writ application. The said order dated 25.03.2022 is sought to be challenged in the present writ application by filing I.A. No. 01 of 2022.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer for impleadment of Rub Nawaz Khan as a party respondent is allowed. Let Rub Nawaz Khan be impleaded as respondent No. 9 with his description as furnished in paragraph-

10. We have heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, learned counsel representing the SEC, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, learned AC to Patna High Court CWJC No.4361 of 2022 dt. 22-06-2022 AAG-7 for the State of Bihar and Mr. Vijay Shankar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the Bikramganj Nagar Parishad.

13. The facts of the case, as asserted in the writ application, are that respondent No. 9 was elected as Chief Councillor of the Nagar Parishad, Bikramganj on 09.06.2018, whereas the petitioner was elected as its Deputy Chief Councillor. The petitioner asserts that from the very beginning, after his election as the Chief Councillor, respondent No. 9 was not discharging his duties in accordance with the scheme of the statute. Majority of the elected Ward Councillors had grievance against respondent No. 9 from the very beginning. However, Patna High Court CWJC No.4361 of 2022 dt. 22-06-2022 there being statutory bar under the first proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 25 of the Act, they waited for expiry of two years for a No Confidence Motion to be brought about against him.

20. Considering the materials facts available with the SEC and the report of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bikramganj, the SEC reached a conclusion that there was non- compliance of the requirement under Rule 2(iv) of the Rules in bringing about No Confidence Motion and, therefore, based on such resolution the SEC could not fix a date for holding election. The SEC, at the same time, did not make any comments upon the proceedings of the special meeting of the No Confidence Motion. The SEC was of the opinion that the Executive Officer, Bikramganj Nagar Parishad put his back- dated signature in order to mislead the SEC to conceal his misconduct. The SEC through its letter dated 18.09.2021 addressed to the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Rohtas recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding against the Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad for his conduct. The SEC found the report submitted by the Deputy Patna High Court CWJC No.4361 of 2022 dt. 22-06-2022 Collector Land Reforms, Bikramganj to be partisan. The SEC recorded its displeasure over the manner in which the enquiry was got conducted.