Case Background
The case arose from political events in Purnea Municipal Corporation, which has 46 wards. Elections to the Corporation were held in 2017. The petitioner was elected councillor from Ward No. 42 and later elected as Mayor of the Corporation.
On 10.07.2018, a requisition for moving a no-confidence motion against the Mayor was submitted, allegedly signed by 20 ward councillors. Acting on this, a special meeting of the Corporation was fixed for 28.07.2018 at 11:30 a.m. This date and time were notified through Memo No. 604 dated 16.07.2018 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Purnea Municipal Corporation.
The special meeting was held on 28.07.2018 and the no-confidence motion against the petitioner was passed by a margin of one vote, thereby unseating her from the post of Mayor.
The Patna High Court’s judgment records that after the petitioner’s removal, the State Election Commission fixed a fresh election for the post of Mayor on 10.08.2018. The petitioner also contested this fresh mayoral election.
On 25.07.2018, even before the special meeting was held, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition (CWJC No. 14679 of 2018) challenging Memo No. 604 dated 16.07.2018 fixing the special meeting for the no-confidence motion. After the motion was actually passed, she amended her petition and sought to set aside the minutes of the meeting dated 28.07.2018.
She further sought an interim order to stay the effect of the no-confidence resolution and to stay the proposed mayoral election scheduled on 10.08.2018. On 09.08.2018, the High Court allowed the election to proceed, but directed that the result not be declared until further orders.
Later, on interlocutory applications filed by two councillors, the Court examined the conduct of the election held on 10.08.2018. On 24.08.2018, being satisfied that the election was held peacefully and impartially under the supervision of the District Magistrate-cum-Returning Officer and the DIG of Police, the Court vacated the interim stay on declaration of results. Thereafter, the main writ petition was heard on merits and judgment was reserved.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner put forward a serious narrative to attack the no-confidence motion. She claimed that she was voted out by only one vote and that this result was possible only because the District Administration in Purnea allegedly conspired with her political opponents and assisted them.
First, she referred to one councillor, Bilash (or Vilash) Chaudhary, who was allegedly an absconder in a murder case and against whom processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been issued. She asserted that he had been absent from four consecutive meetings of the Corporation held on 16.10.2017, 27.12.2017, 09.03.2018 and 10.04.2018. On this basis, she claimed that his membership was liable to be cancelled under Section 18(1)(n) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
The petitioner stated that she had informed the Municipal Commissioner about this default. The Municipal Commissioner in turn wrote to the District Magistrate, Purnea on 27.06.2018, seeking appropriate action. According to the petitioner, the District Magistrate, in connivance with her opponents, deliberately sat over this issue and did not forward the matter to the State Election Commission despite repeated representations by her and by some ward councillors.
She emphasised that the District Magistrate forwarded the matter to the State Election Commission only on 02.08.2018, i.e. after the no-confidence motion had already been passed on 28.07.2018, and after Bilash Chaudhary had voted against her in that meeting. This delay, according to her, showed official bias and collusion.
The second major ground raised by the petitioner was that two councillors who were allegedly her supporters — Rekha Devi (Ward No. 15) and Fuliya Devi (Ward No. 46) — had been kidnapped before the requisition was submitted. She claimed that Fuliya Devi was kidnapped on 04.07.2018 and an FIR (Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No. 363 of 2018) was lodged by her son, Jiwachh Kumar Rishi, but no effective police action followed. She further claimed that Rekha Devi and her minor daughter Kashish Kumari were kidnapped on 08.07.2018 but the police refused to register any FIR.
Despite these alleged kidnappings, the requisition for the no-confidence motion dated 10.07.2018 showed the signatures of both Rekha Devi and Fuliya Devi. The petitioner also alleged that the signatures of other councillors, including Kamini Devi and Md. Sohail, were forged. She added that the requisition was also signed by absconding councillor Bilash Chaudhary.
The petitioner further referred to various complaints and applications made by the sons of the alleged kidnapped councillors to the Superintendent of Police, the Director General of Police, the Chief Minister, and the National Human Rights Commission, followed by a complaint case (Complaint Case No.1274 of 2018) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. The Magistrate had directed registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC, but the petitioner claimed that even this order was not complied with.
Because the police allegedly failed to act, the sons of Rekha Devi and Fuliya Devi filed separate habeas corpus writ petitions before the Patna High Court (Cr. W.J.C. Nos. 1795 and 1796 of 2018). On 25.07.2018, the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Purnea to produce Rekha Devi, Fuliya Devi and minor Kashish Kumari on 26.07.2018.
When the matter was taken up on 26.07.2018, the Station House Officer and a Deputy Superintendent of Police appeared before the Court, but did not produce the councillors, instead asserting that they were not kidnapped. On 27.07.2018, private lawyers appeared for the councillors and the matter was adjourned. On 01.08.2018, both councillors appeared before the High Court and stated that they had not been kidnapped. The petitioner claimed that this statement was forced by police pressure and that the police did not allow their sons to meet them.
On the strength of these facts, counsel for the petitioner argued that the entire process of calling and conducting the special meeting on 28.07.2018 was vitiated. He asked the Court to declare that the no-confidence motion was not passed in a free, fair and legal manner and to set aside the resolution dated 28.07.2018.
On the other side, several sets of respondents opposed the writ petition. They argued that the original challenge to Memo No. 604 dated 16.07.2018 was unsustainable because the petitioner herself had fixed the date for the special meeting pursuant to the requisition submitted by 20 councillors, well above the one-third requirement under the rules governing no-confidence motions. After having herself convened and attended the meeting, they argued, she could not later claim that the meeting itself was illegal.
The respondents also pointed out that Rekha Devi and Fuliya Devi had actually participated in the special meeting on 28.07.2018 and had raised no complaint of kidnapping at that time. Both councillors filed counter affidavits in the writ proceedings, categorically denying that they had ever been kidnapped and stating that they had also given statements under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate to the same effect.
Respondents 9 and 14, whose signatures were alleged to be forged on the requisition, filed a joint counter affidavit. In paragraph 12, they stated that they had themselves signed the requisition for the no-confidence motion and that their signatures were genuine. They noted that none of the supposed signatories themselves had disputed their signatures, and yet the petitioner was questioning them without basis. The petitioner did not file any rejoinder to this counter affidavit.
Counsel for respondents 16 and 21 further argued that, after the petitioner’s removal as Mayor, a fresh election for Mayor was held on 10.08.2018 in which the petitioner herself contested. This, they suggested, showed that she had accepted the validity of the no-confidence motion and was now abusing the process of the Court by pressing baseless challenges.
After hearing all sides and examining the record, the Patna High Court concluded that the respondents’ submissions had substance.
The Court first noted that the requisition for the special meeting was signed by 20 councillors, while the Corporation had a total strength of 46 councillors. The applicable rule required only one-third of the councillors to sign the requisition for calling a special meeting on a no-confidence motion. Thus, the numerical requirement was fully satisfied.
Secondly, the Court recorded that the petitioner herself had fixed the date for the special meeting after receiving the requisition and had participated in the meeting. In these circumstances, she could not convincingly allege that the requisition or the meeting was invalid.
Thirdly, the Court placed weight on the counter affidavits of respondents 9 and 14 confirming that they had signed the requisition and that their signatures were not forged. The absence of any rejoinder by the petitioner to dispute these sworn statements further weakened her allegation of forgery.
Fourthly, regarding the alleged kidnapping of councillors Rekha Devi and Fuliya Devi, the Court highlighted that in the earlier habeas corpus petitions (Cr. W.J.C. Nos. 1795 and 1796 of 2018), the two councillors had personally appeared before a Division Bench of the High Court and clearly stated that they had never gone missing and were not kidnapped by anyone. On being satisfied with these statements, the Division Bench had disposed of those petitions by order dated 01.08.2018.
In the present writ case, both Rekha Devi (respondent 20) and Fuliya Devi (respondent 49) again filed counter affidavits. They affirmed that although the petitioner had taken part in the special meeting on 28.07.2018, she had not raised any objection regarding their alleged kidnapping during the meeting itself. They reiterated that they had given statements under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate denying any kidnapping and completely rejected the version advanced by the petitioner.
In light of these materials, the Court held that the plea of kidnapping of two ward councillors and the allegation of forged signatures on the requisition could not be believed.
The Court also took note of the subsequent mayoral election held on 10.08.2018. The minutes produced by the State Election Commission showed that, in accordance with the Court’s earlier order dated 09.08.2018, the election was conducted under the supervision of the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer and the DIG, Purnea Range. Four nomination sets were filed — one by the petitioner and three by councillor Sabita Devi. All nominations were scrutinised and found valid. No candidate withdrew. Voting took place between 1:31 p.m. and 2:29 p.m.; ballots were sealed in the presence of councillors, candidates, observers and the DIG; and the sealed ballot box was stored in the strong room. The minutes recorded that the election process was transparent, impartial, peaceful, and videographed.
On 24.08.2018, relying on these minutes, the High Court had already vacated the stay on pronouncement of results. In the final judgment, the Court reiterated that it was fully satisfied that the election had been held peacefully and impartially, as required by its earlier directions.
Ultimately, the Court held that no ground was made out to set aside the resolution passed in the special meeting dated 28.07.2018. The writ petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for councillors, mayors and citizens involved in local body politics in Bihar. It shows that once a no-confidence process is started according to law, and the required number of councillors support it, the Court will be slow to interfere.
The Patna High Court emphasised that allegations of kidnapping and forgery must be backed by strong, consistent evidence. Where the very councillors said to be kidnapped personally appear before the Court, deny the allegation, and file affidavits and statements under Section 164 CrPC, a later attempt to re‑label their presence as “under threat” is unlikely to succeed.
The decision also underlines that a mayor who herself fixes the date of a no-confidence meeting, attends that meeting and then contests a fresh election for the same post, cannot easily turn around and challenge the basic validity of that process in a writ petition.
For ordinary residents and elected representatives, the judgment reinforces that disputes over political support and internal council alignments must largely be resolved within the political forum, not through repeated litigation without solid proof of illegality.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Was the requisition and special meeting dated 28.07.2018 for the no-confidence motion against the Mayor of Purnea Municipal Corporation legally valid?
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that the requisition had signatures of more than one-third of the councillors, the petitioner herself fixed and attended the meeting, and no legal defect in the convening of the meeting was proved. -
Issue: Did alleged kidnapping of two councillors and alleged forged signatures on the requisition make the no-confidence motion illegal?
Answer: No. The Court rejected these allegations because the concerned councillors had repeatedly denied being kidnapped in court and in statements under Section 164 CrPC, they attended the meeting without protest, and councillors accused of forged signatures confirmed on affidavit that they had signed the requisition. -
Issue: Was any ground made out for the High Court to set aside the no-confidence resolution and subsequent mayoral election?
Answer: No. Finding that the no-confidence motion and the fresh election were conducted in a transparent, impartial and peaceful manner under proper supervision, the Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment refers to earlier orders in Cr. W.J.C. Nos. 1795 of 2018, 1796 of 2018 and 1883 of 2018, including directions for enquiry by the Director General of Police, but does not cite any reported case law as precedents.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14679 of 2018
Case Title: Vibha Kumari @ Bibha Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh
Date of Judgment: 08.04.2019
Citation: 2019(2) PLJR 1057
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, Advocate; Mr. Siddhartha, Advocate; Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
- For the Respondents–State Election Commission: Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocate; Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate
- For Respondent Nos. 16 & 21: Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh, Advocate
- For Respondent Nos. 8, 20 & 49: Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate; Mr. Saket Tiwary, Advocate; Mr. Murari Kumar, Advocate
- For Respondent Nos. 9 & 14: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate
- For Respondent Nos. 5, 7, 10, 11, 19, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35 & 36: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate; Mr. Saket Gupta, Advocate
- For the Respondent–State: Mr. Abbas Haidar, SC-6
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging notice and minutes relating to a no-confidence motion against a Mayor and linked to the subsequent mayoral election.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in CWJC No. 14679 of 2018
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.
