Case Background
The petitioners were five elected Municipal Councillors of Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation. They belonged to different wards of the Corporation and approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction.
Their grievance related to a proposed no-confidence motion against the Chief Councillor (Mayor) of Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation. Under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and the Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010, Councillors can seek removal of the Chief Councillor or Deputy Chief Councillor by passing a no-confidence resolution in a special meeting.
The petitioners claimed that on 01.12.2021 they submitted a written requisition for such a special meeting. According to them, this requisition was signed by 21 out of 51 Councillors of Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, i.e., more than one-third of the total elected Councillors as required by law.
At that time, the term of the Municipal Corporation was nearing completion. The “residual period” of six months before expiry of the Corporation’s tenure was to begin on 09.12.2021 and the tenure itself was to end on 09.06.2022.
The petitioners’ requisition dated 01.12.2021 was considered by the Municipal Commissioner, Bhagalpur. Acting on legal opinion, the Commissioner informed the requisitionists by letter dated 11.12.2021 that a no-confidence motion on the basis of that requisition was impermissible under Section 25 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. The stand was that such motion could not be brought within the residual period of six months of the Municipality.
Feeling aggrieved, the Councillors filed this writ petition (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1652 of 2022) before the Patna High Court. They sought quashing of the Municipal Commissioner’s communication dated 11.12.2021 and a direction (mandamus) to convene a special meeting to consider their proposed no-confidence motion against the Mayor.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh (authoring the judgment) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad, heard the matter and delivered judgment on 04.04.2022.
The central legal question before the Court was very narrow: whether submission of a requisition signed by the required number of Councillors can itself be treated as “bringing” a no-confidence motion under Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, especially in light of the proviso that bars such motion within the last six months of the Municipality’s term.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the requisition dated 01.12.2021 was made before the start of the residual six‑month period (which began on 09.12.2021). Therefore, according to them, the bar created by the third proviso to Section 25(4) — which says that a no-confidence motion shall not be brought within the residual period of six months of the Municipality — did not apply.
They contended that the date of filing the requisition should be treated as the date on which the no-confidence motion was brought. They also stressed that the Rules required the Chief Councillor to issue notice for a special meeting within seven days of receiving the requisition and hold the meeting within fifteen days thereafter. If the Chief Councillor had complied with this duty, the notice and the meeting could both have fallen before or well within the allowed period, and the motion could have been considered before 09.06.2022.
On this basis, they submitted that the Chief Councillor could not be allowed to benefit from any failure to call the special meeting, and that the bar under the third proviso should not be invoked against the Councillors who had done their part by filing the requisition in time.
The Corporation, through its counsel, opposed the writ petition. Two key points were made on its behalf.
First, it was stated that earlier no-confidence motions had already been brought against the Chief Councillor. One such motion was brought on 25.09.2019 and was defeated. A second no-confidence motion was brought on 09.12.2021, which was also defeated.
The Corporation relied on the second proviso to Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, which prohibits bringing another no-confidence motion within one year of the first no-confidence motion. On this logic, any fresh attempt within one year of 09.12.2021 would be barred.
The Corporation further argued that if the petitioners’ own stand was accepted — that the date of requisition is the date of “bringing” the motion — it would become self-defeating. Treating the requisition date as the motion date would mean a third no-confidence motion was being brought within one year of the second, which is prohibited by the statute.
Secondly, the Corporation reiterated that since the tenure of the Municipal Corporation was coming to an end on 09.06.2022, the third proviso to Section 25(4) clearly prohibited bringing any no-confidence motion within the residual six months, i.e., after 09.12.2021. Thus, on the Corporation’s view, the communication dated 11.12.2021 correctly applied the statutory bar.
To support its arguments, the Corporation relied on a previous Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Manik Lal Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2019 (3) PLJR 1310, particularly paragraph 12 of that decision. In that earlier case, the Court had examined the meaning of a “requisition” for a no-confidence motion and had held that a requisition is only a notice of intention, not the motion itself.
The Bench in the present case agreed with the reasoning in Manik Lal Prasad. It noted that Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act describes how a Chief Councillor or Deputy Chief Councillor may be removed: by a resolution carried by a majority of the whole number of Councillors at a special meeting called for that purpose, upon a requisition in writing made by not less than one-third of the total number of Councillors.
The Court emphasised that the three provisos attached to Section 25(4) place explicit limits on the timing of such motions. In particular, the third proviso clearly states that a no-confidence motion shall not be brought within the residual period of six months of the Municipality.
The Court then looked at the Bihar Municipal No Confidence Motion Process Rules, 2010. Rule 2 lays down the process:
- The requisition for a special meeting has to be signed by at least one-third of the elected Councillors and given to the Chief Councillor.
- The Chief Councillor must issue notice for the special meeting within seven days of receiving the requisition, and the meeting must be convened within fifteen days of issuing such notice.
- If the Chief Councillor does not act, the special meeting may instead be called under Section 48(3) of the Act, with notice issued by the Chief Municipal Officer.
- The notice must clearly state the reasons or allegations for the no-confidence motion.
- At the special meeting, the motion is read out, discussed, and put to vote by secret ballot on the same day.
Based on this framework, the Bench held that a no-confidence motion is “brought” only when it is actually moved and considered in the special meeting convened specifically for that purpose. The mere act of submitting a requisition is only a step towards that meeting; it is not the motion itself.
The Court drew support from the discussion of “requisition”, “notice of motion” and “motion” in Manik Lal Prasad and from definitions cited from P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon. A “notice of motion” is not a motion; it simply indicates an intention to move a motion in future. A “motion” involves a proposal brought before a deliberative body to elicit its decision.
Applying this reasoning, the Bench concluded that the date on which Councillors submit a requisition is irrelevant for determining whether a no-confidence motion falls within the prohibited period. What matters is the date on which the motion is actually moved in the special meeting.
Therefore, because the residual six-month period of the Municipality began on 09.12.2021 and the Corporation’s tenure was to end on 09.06.2022, any special meeting to move a no-confidence motion during that period would be hit by the third proviso to Section 25(4). The requisition dated 01.12.2021 did not change this position, since no motion had yet been moved in a special meeting before the bar took effect.
In light of these findings, the Court held that the petitioners’ legal argument — that the requisition date should be taken as the motion date and therefore outside the bar — could not be accepted. The requisition remained only an intention; without a special meeting and an actual motion, the statutory requirement for “bringing” a no-confidence motion was not met.
Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the Municipal Commissioner’s letter dated 11.12.2021, which had stated that a no-confidence motion on the basis of that requisition was impermissible under Section 25.
The writ application was therefore dismissed, without any order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for elected members of Municipal Corporations and Municipalities across Bihar. It clarifies that simply submitting a requisition signed by enough Councillors does not itself amount to bringing a no-confidence motion against a Chief Councillor or Deputy Chief Councillor.
For a valid no-confidence move, the special meeting must actually be convened and the motion must be tabled in that meeting. Only then can it be said that a motion has been “brought” within the meaning of Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act.
The judgment also reinforces the strict time limits built into the statute. No-confidence motions cannot be brought:
- within two years of the Chief Councillor or Deputy Chief Councillor taking charge,
- again within one year after a no-confidence motion has already been brought, and
- within the last six months of the Municipality’s term.
For local representatives and citizens, this means that efforts to remove a Mayor or Deputy Mayor through no-confidence must be planned keeping these statutory bars clearly in mind. Missing the window of time, even by delay in convening the special meeting, may make the move legally impossible.
For administrators like Municipal Commissioners, this ruling confirms that they may refuse to proceed with a requisition-based no-confidence process if it would result in a motion being moved during a barred period. The Patna High Court has backed a strict reading of the statute.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Does the act of submitting a requisition by the required number of Councillors amount to “bringing” a no-confidence motion under Section 25(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that a requisition is only a notice of intention or a proposal for consideration. A no-confidence motion is “brought” only when it is actually moved in a special meeting convened for that purpose.
Issue: Can a no-confidence motion against a Chief Councillor be proceeded with when the special meeting for it would fall within the residual six months of the Municipality’s term?
Answer: No. Relying on the third proviso to Section 25(4), the Court held that no-confidence motions cannot be brought within the residual six-month period, regardless of when the requisition was filed.
Issue: Was the Municipal Commissioner’s communication dated 11.12.2021, stating that a no-confidence motion was impermissible, liable to be quashed?
Answer: No. The Court found no legal infirmity in the communication and refused to issue mandamus for convening a special meeting. The writ petition was dismissed.
Cases Cited by the Court
Manik Lal Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2019 (3) PLJR 1310 – Division Bench judgment relied upon to clarify that a requisition is only a notice of intention and not itself a no-confidence motion.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1652 of 2022
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Sinha & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Citation: 2022 (2) PLJR 441
Advocates:
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Purushottam Kumar Das, Advocate
- For the State/Respondents: Mr. Kinkar Kumar, Standing Counsel-9; Ms. Deepika Sharma, AC to SC-9
- For Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging refusal to convene a special meeting for a no-confidence motion against the Chief Councillor (Mayor) of Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation.
Date of Judgment: 04.04.2022
CAV Date: 24.03.2022
Link to Judgment: Full text of judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
