IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.939 of 2011
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6501 of 2011
======================================================
Raj Kumari Gupta, W/o Late Krishna Prasad, R/o Mohalla-Bajaj Patti, Near
Naka No. 1(in the street opposite of Chhaya Studio), P.O.-Motihari, P.S.-
Town Thana, District-Purvi Champaran.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Motihari Nagar Parishad through its Chief Councillor, Motihari.
3. The Executive Officer, Motihari Nagar Parishad, Motihari.
4. The District Magistrate, Motihari, District-Motihari.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar, AC to GA 3.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
3. 08-07-2011 This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 11 th April 2011
passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 6501 of
2011.
The learned Single Judge has rejected the challenge
to the notice dated 4th April 2011 issued by the Executive Officer,
Nagar Parishad, Motihari in respect of no confidence motion
moved against the appellant-writ petitioner, the Deputy Chief
Councillor of Nagar Parishad.
Learned advocate Mr. Mrigank Mauli has appeared
for the appellant. He admits that since the dismissal of the writ
petition no confidence motion against the appellant has been
passed by the Nagar Parishad. Consequently, the appellant has
Patna High Court LPA No.939 of 2011 (3) dt.08-07-2011
2
been removed from the office of the Deputy Chief Councillor.
In view of the above development, the present
Appeal has become infructuous.
If aggrieved, the appellant may challenge the order of
removal passed against him before appropriate forum. The order
may also be challenged on the grounds raised in the present
Appeal.
We clarify that we have not examined the correctness
of the judgment of the learned single Judge or the question
whether or not the Executive Officer was competent to give notice
of no confidence motion.
Subject to the above observations, the Appeal is
disposed of.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
Sujit/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)