IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.12292 of 2010
1. RAKIBA KHATOON W/O SHRI NAJMUL HUDA R/O MOHALLA-
BARI SANGAT, P.S. JAHANABAD, DISTT.- JAHANABAD
2. SANJAY KUMAR S/O LATE NARESH PRASAD SHARMA R/O
VILL.- NIJAMUDDINPUR, P.S. JAHANABAD, DISTT.- JAHANABAD
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,
PATNA
2. THE DIRECTOR, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE NAGAR PARISHAD, JAHANABAD THROUGH ITS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER JAHANABAD
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PARISHAD,
JAHANABAD
5. S.D.O., JAHANABAD
6. AWADH SHARMA, COUNCILLOR WARD NO. 4, NAGAR
PARISHAD, JAHANABAD
7. MOHAMMAD MUSTAQUE, COUNCILLOR WARD NO. 16, NAGAR
PARISHAD, JAHANABAD
8. SAMUDRI DEVI, COUNCILLOR WARD NO.3, NAGAR PARISHAD,
JAHANABAD
9. TARIKH KHARUN, COUNCILLOR WARD NO.30, NAGAR
PARISHAD, JAHANABAD
10. MADHURI DEVI, COUNCILLOR WARD NO.6, NAGAR
PARISHAD, JAHANABAD
11. RAMASHRAYA SINGH, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.2 NAGAR
PARISHAD, JAHANABAD
12. NURSABA KHATOON, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO. 27, NAGAR
PARISHAD, JAHANABAD
13. ANITA KUMARI, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO. 31, NAGAR
PARISHAD, JAHANABAD
14. RAUSHAN ARA, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO. 13, NAGAR
PARISHAD, JAHANABAD
15. REHANA BEGUM, COUNCILLOR WARD NO. 12, NAGAR
PARISHAD, JAHANABAD
16. ANITA KUMARI, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO. 7, JAHANABAD
-----------
03. 28.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the
State and for the Nagar Parishad, Jehanabad.
The petitioners are stated to be the Chief
Councilor and Deputy Chief Councilor of the Nagar
Parishad, aggrieved by the requisition dated 15.7.2010
2
under Section 25 (4) calling for a special meeting to
discuss a “No Confidence Motion” against them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners were elected on 15.7.2009. Relying on
Section 25 (4) of the Act, he submits that a “No Confidence
Motion” could not be brought within a period of two years
from taking over the charge.
The writ petition was filed as far back as
22.7.2010 after serving copies on the counsel for the State
and the Nagar Parishad. No counter affidavit has been filed
on their behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the requisition has not been tabled and has
not been the subject matter of any discussion.
On the own showing of the petitioners, they
would have a limited right under the aforesaid provision till
14.7.2011 when the two years bar would expire.
Considering that about two and half months remain, and
the failure of the respondents to file a counter affidavit, the
writ application is disposed on the principles of non-
traverse holding that a “No Confidence Motion” cannot be
tabled against the petitioners prior to 15.7.2010.
The writ application stands allowed.
P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)