Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (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 February, 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:- (i) The petitioner under the Jharkhand Municipality (Procedure for No Confidence Motion against Deputy Mayor/Vice-Chairperson) Rules, 2014 notified on 28th August, 2014 and gazetted on 11th February, 2015 was not acting as a Chairperson in terms of Rule-3(1) in the absence of which no confidence motion would have been moved. (ii) The amendment in the Rules of 2014 notified on 22nd October, 2014 gazetted on 5th November, 2014 which amends Rule-3(1) to the effect that requirement of acting as a Chairperson has been done away for moving a no confidence motion against any such Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson or Councilors would not over-ride the provisions of Rules, 2014 which has been gazetted thereafter on 11th February, 2015 and which contains the specific unamended provisions of Rule-3(1). (iii) The process of initiation of no confidence motion leading to its vote before the House should incorporate specific provisions for conduct of enquiry in respect of the charges alleged in the no confidence motion with opportunity to the person i.e. the petitioner herein, before it is put to vote before the House i.e. the Nagar Parishad. Failure to comply with the aforesaid requirement is a denial of the due process of law and any such procedure suffers from the vice of unfairness, unreasonableness and requirement of being just as held in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 597 . Such a procedure would therefore be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and would hit the entire exercise of the no confidence motion. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Apex Court in Sharda Kailash Mittal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 319 , para-24 and 26 also in support of the same submission.
(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 October, 2014 and gazetted on 5th November, 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 February, 2015. The original rule has been notified on 28th August, 2014 and has been gazetted on 11th February, 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 February, 2015 the amended Rules 3(1) notified on 22nd October, 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 February, 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 October, 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.;