Case Background
This common judgment of the Patna High Court deals with three writ petitions: CWJC No. 17044 of 2021, CWJC No. 17251 of 2021 and CWJC No. 18237 of 2021. All petitions arose out of upgradation of several urban local bodies in Bihar under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
In CWJC No. 17044 of 2021, the petitioners were elected office bearers of different Nagar Parishads and Nagar Panchayats which were upgraded by notification dated 03.03.2021 issued under Section 6 of the Bihar Municipal Act. Through this notification, Motihari, Bettiah, Samastipur and Madhubani Nagar Parishads were upgraded into Nagar Nigams and several Nagar Panchayats, including Sheohar, Rosera, Kanti, Pupri, Simri Bakhtiyarpur and Haveli Kharagpur, were upgraded into Nagar Parishads.
In CWJC No. 17251 of 2021, the petitioners were the Chairman and Vice Chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Bodh Gaya. This body was upgraded to Nagar Parishad, Bodh Gaya by notification dated 31.03.2021.
In CWJC No. 18237 of 2021, the petitioners were elected office bearers of Nagar Panchayat, Warsaliganj and Nagar Panchayat, Hisua. These were upgraded to Nagar Parishad, Warsaliganj and Nagar Parishad, Hisua by notification dated 11.03.2021.
Under Section 6 of the Act, such notifications constitute new municipal areas. Section 12(8) states that in a newly constituted municipal area, the earlier local authority will continue to have jurisdiction and perform its functions only for a maximum period of six months from the date of notification, for the purpose of holding elections.
On 01.09.2021, the Secretary, State Election Commission, Bihar wrote to the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department. He requested that Administrators be appointed in the upgraded urban areas where the six month period from the date of notification had lapsed or was about to lapse, because elections could not be held in time.
This letter dated 01.09.2021 was challenged in all three writ petitions. During pendency of the cases, on 29.09.2021 the Directorate of Municipal Administration issued a notification appointing District Magistrates as Administrators of certain upgraded Nagar Nigams such as Sasaram, Motihari, Bettiah, Madhubani and Samastipur. In some upgraded Nagar Parishads, including Bodh Gaya, Additional Collectors nominated by the District Magistrates were appointed as Administrators.
The petitioners in CWJC No. 17044 of 2021 and CWJC No. 17251 of 2021 filed interlocutory applications seeking amendment in their writ petitions to challenge the notification dated 29.09.2021. The Court allowed these IAs and treated the amended pleadings as part of the main writ petitions.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad) first identified the core issues. One, what happens to the jurisdiction of an existing local authority once a new municipal area is notified and six months have passed, in view of Section 12(8) of the Bihar Municipal Act. Two, whether the State Government was competent to appoint an individual “Administrator” instead of a “Board of Administrators” under Section 12(9) of the Act, and whether existing elected office bearers had any right to be included in such a Board.
The Court reproduced Section 12(8) and 12(9) of the Act and Article 243U of the Constitution, which deals with duration of municipalities. Article 243U(1) provides that every municipality shall continue for five years from the first meeting “unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force”. It also mandates timely elections, including within six months of dissolution.
On behalf of the petitioners in CWJC No. 17044 of 2021, it was argued that Section 12(9) gave the State an option to appoint either an Administrator or a Board of Administrators. According to them, the State Government should have chosen a Board of Administrators and included the existing elected office bearers, who had not completed their five year term, as members of such Board.
They also argued that the State Election Commission had failed in its duty to conduct elections for the newly constituted bodies within six months from the Section 6 notifications, which was required to give effect to the 74th Constitutional Amendment. They referred to how advisory committees were set up in Gram Panchayats when elections were delayed and said a similar mechanism should have been followed in upgraded municipal areas.
To support their interpretation, they cited Supreme Court decisions in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose (AIR 1952 SC 369) and J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (AIR 1961 SC 1170), stressing that no part of a statute should be rendered meaningless. They claimed that since the law mentioned “Board of Administrators”, it had to be given effect by including them.
The petitioners in CWJC No. 17251 of 2021 added that Section 12(9) applied only where it was not possible to hold general elections before the expiry of the five year term specified in Section 12(5). In their view, the municipal bodies to which they were elected had not been dissolved. Therefore, invoking Section 12(9) to appoint Administrators, and thereby ending their tenure before five years, was illegal.
The petitioners in CWJC No. 18237 of 2021, through senior counsel, placed strong reliance on Article 243U. They submitted that every municipality must be allowed to continue for five years unless it is dissolved under a valid law, and upgradation alone does not amount to dissolution. They argued that Section 12(9) of the Act must be read harmoniously with Article 243U so that the constitutional protection of a five-year term is not cut down.
They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad, (2006) 8 SCC 352, which emphasises the constitutional mandate of timely municipal elections.
On the other side, the State argued that Section 12(9) clearly gave the Government discretion to appoint either an Administrator or a Board of Administrators. There was no legal right for the petitioners to insist that they must be included in any Board. The State also defended the notifications appointing District Magistrates and Additional Collectors as Administrators.
The Court then closely examined the definition of “Administrator” in Section 2(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act. An Administrator is defined as “any officer appointed by the State Government” to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the municipalities and related authorities under the Act.
On this basis, the Court held that an Administrator must be an officer appointed by the State Government. The petitioners, being elected representatives, were not officers appointed by the Government. Therefore, they could not fall within the expression “such person or persons” to be designated as Administrator or Board of Administrators under Section 12(9).
The Bench noted that Section 12(9) does not cast any statutory obligation on the State to appoint a Board of Administrators instead of a single Administrator. It only gives an option. Nor does it require that elected representatives be made members of any Board. Nothing in the Act conferred a legal right on the petitioners to continue as office bearers or to sit on any Board of Administrators once their earlier local bodies lost jurisdiction over the upgraded areas.
Turning to Article 243U, the Court observed that constitution of the new Nagar Parishads and Nagar Nigams by upgradation under Section 6 was not under challenge. Section 12(8) clearly states that in a newly constituted municipal area, the previous local authority shall continue only up to six months from the date of the notification, as may be necessary for holding elections.
The Court concluded that by operation of Section 12(8), the earlier local authorities automatically ceased to have jurisdiction and their duration came to an end on completion of six months from the date of the Section 6 notification. Their life could not be extended beyond that period. Thus, the existing municipalities stood “dissolved” by virtue of this statutory provision.
In this way, the Court harmonised Article 243U with Section 12(8). Article 243U itself allows municipalities to be dissolved “under any law for the time being in force”. For Bihar, Section 12(8) is such a law. So, although Article 243U generally provides for a five-year term, it also recognises earlier dissolution under a valid law. Therefore, there was no violation of the Constitution when the earlier bodies ceased after six months owing to Section 12(8).
The Court held that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kishansing Tomar did not help the petitioners. That case dealt with directions to hold elections before expiry of the five-year term of an existing Municipal Corporation. Here, by contrast, the statute itself limited the continuation of earlier local authorities to six months after upgradation, and the petitioners had not even challenged the failure to hold elections within that time. Instead, they were only trying to preserve their own positions in some form.
The Bench pointed out that while Section 12(8) contemplated that elections should ideally be held within six months, in these cases elections could not be completed due to reasons such as the second wave of COVID-19 and Panchayat General Elections, as stated by the State Election Commission in its letter dated 01.09.2021.
Interestingly, the Court noted that the petitioners had not raised any grievance against the Election Commission’s failure to hold elections within the six-month window, nor had they pleaded any facts to dispute the reasons cited in the Commission’s letter. This reinforced the view that their main concern was continuance in office, not restoration of elected local governance.
Given the clear language of Section 12(8), the Court found it legally impermissible to allow the petitioners to continue as office bearers beyond six months after upgradation. Consequently, it upheld the State’s power to appoint Administrators and found nothing illegal or beyond jurisdiction in the notification dated 29.09.2021.
Regarding the challenge to the Election Commission’s communication dated 01.09.2021, the Court held that it was misconceived. The Commission had merely informed the State Government that elections in the upgraded areas could not be held in time and therefore requested appointment of Administrators. This, by itself, did not infringe any legal right of the petitioners.
The Court also referred again to Kishansing Tomar where the Supreme Court acknowledged that exceptional circumstances such as natural or man-made calamities may delay municipal elections, though they must remain exceptions. While the Patna High Court did not rule on whether the reasons here were truly exceptional, it emphasised that the State Election Commission must ensure early municipal elections.
In the end, the Court answered the issues framed in the opening paragraph of the judgment against the petitioners. It held that the earlier municipalities stood dissolved by operation of Section 12(8) after six months from the upgradation notifications, and that the State was competent to appoint Administrators under Section 12(9). The writ petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for elected members of municipal bodies and for residents of newly upgraded urban areas in Bihar.
First, it clarifies that when a Nagar Panchayat or Nagar Parishad is upgraded to a larger municipal body, the previous elected body can function only for up to six months, even if its five year term is not over. After that, its powers end automatically by law.
Second, the decision confirms that the State Government may appoint individual officers, like District Magistrates or Additional Collectors, as Administrators when elections are delayed. Elected representatives have no legal right to insist on being included in any Board of Administrators.
Third, the Court stresses that the State Election Commission must conduct municipal elections at the earliest, even though temporary administrators can be appointed. For citizens, this means that prolonged rule by administrators should be the exception, not the norm, and there remains a constitutional push towards elected local self-government.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Do existing municipal bodies continue beyond six months after their area is upgraded to a new municipal area under Section 6 of the Bihar Municipal Act?
Answer: No. By virtue of Section 12(8), the earlier local authority’s jurisdiction and functions end after at most six months from the notification, and the body stands dissolved. -
Issue: Is the State Government bound to appoint a Board of Administrators including previous elected office bearers, instead of a single Administrator, under Section 12(9)?
Answer: No. Section 12(9) gives the State discretion to appoint such person or persons as Administrator or Board of Administrators. “Administrator” must be an officer appointed by the State Government, not elected representatives, and there is no legal right of former office bearers to be included. -
Issue: Does cutting short the five-year term of municipalities upon upgradation violate Article 243U of the Constitution?
Answer: No. Article 243U permits earlier dissolution “under any law for the time being in force”. Section 12(8) is such a law in Bihar, and municipalities in question stood dissolved by its operation after six months.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369 (cited by petitioners for principles of statutory interpretation).
- J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1170 (cited by petitioners on giving effect to all parts of a statute).
- Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad, (2006) 8 SCC 352 (relied on by petitioners; analysed by the Court while distinguishing the facts and reinforcing the mandate of timely municipal elections).
Case Details
Case Numbers:
- Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17044 of 2021
- Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17251 of 2021
- Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18237 of 2021
Case Title:
- Anju Devi & Ors v. The State of Bihar & Ors (CWJC No. 17044 of 2021)
- Belmati Devi & Anr v. The State of Bihar & Ors (CWJC No. 17251 of 2021)
- Shambhu Prasad & Anr v. The State of Bihar & Ors (CWJC No. 18237 of 2021)
Coram:
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Date of Judgment: 17.01.2022
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 377
Advocates:
- For petitioners (CWJC No. 17044 of 2021): Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate; Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate.
- For petitioners (CWJC No. 17251 of 2021): Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
- For petitioners (CWJC No. 18237 of 2021): Mr. Sanjay Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Aditya Shankar Prasad, Advocate; Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, Advocate; Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate; Mr. Aalekh Anand, Advocate; Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh, Advocate; Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate.
- For the Respondent State (CWJC Nos. 17044 of 2021 and 18237 of 2021): Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh, GA 3.
- For the Respondent State (CWJC No. 17251 of 2021): Mr. Kinkar Kumar, SC 9.
- For the State Election Commission: Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Writ petitions under civil writ jurisdiction challenging the State Election Commission’s letter dated 01.09.2021 and the State Government’s notification dated 29.09.2021 appointing Administrators for newly upgraded municipal bodies in Bihar.
Link to Full Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment
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.
