SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Padmini Singha - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam & Others - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4677 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 33637 of 2017)
Decided On : 27-09-2018
(b) Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 – Section 15(1) – Requirement of Deputy Commissioner convening the special meeting to consider no confidence motion – Instantly, meeting not convened by Dy. Commissioner – Meeting held and respondent 6, the beneficiary President, attended it and voted – No confidence motion did not affect any public interest – The BDO presided over and everyone knew purpose of the meeting – After losing in the voting process, respondent 6 assailing the process – Not tenable – Had respondent 6 not participated, matter would have been different – Having participated, respondent 6 waived the condition precedent. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
On 30.01.2014, the appellant along with seven members of Masughat Gaon Panchayat submitted a No Confidence Motion against the President, respondent no. 6 herein, and for requisition of a special meeting to prove the majority of Gaon Panchayat President as per Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.
The special meeting of No Confidence was convened on 31.03.2014 at 12:30 p.m. presided over by BDO. The President, respondent no. 6 herein, lost her Presidentship and the Vice President, appellant herein, was directed to function as incharge President of the concerned Panchayat for the time being.
Respondent no. 6 filed a writ petition which was allowed.
The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Having participated, respondent 6 waived the condition precedent.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Dipak Misra, CJI
On 30.01.2014, the appellant along with seven members of Masughat Gaon Panchayat submitted a No Confidence Motion against the President, respondent no. 6 herein, and for requisition of a special meeting to prove the majority of Gaon Panchayat President as per Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). On 15.02.2014, the Secretary, Masughat Gaon Panchayat forwarded the said requisition to the President, Borkhola Anchalik Panchayat stating therein that the matter had already been put up before the President, Masughat Gaon Panchayat on 07.02.2014 for taking necessary action but she asked to wait due to some legal complications. Since the stipulated period of calling a special meeting was over, the petition was being referred for taking necessary action as per provisions of the Act. By virtue of letter dated 26.02.2014, the Block Development Officer (BDO), Borkhola Development Block referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar stating that he had already put the matter before the President of the concerned Panchayat on 20.02.2014; that she stated to wait and that since the stipulated period for calling a special meeting was over, the matter was being referred to him for taking necessary action as per the Act.
2. On 17.03.2014, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar sent a communication to the BDO, Borkhola Development Block which is as follows:-
“No. CDO.1/2014/11 Dated, Silchar,
the 17th March, 2014
To,
The Block Development Officer,
Borkhola Development Block.
Sub. Special Meeting of No Confidence Motion against the President Masughat GP.
Ref.BDE/E-11/92-98/Pt.II/AP
Establishment, Dated
26-02-2014
I am to return herewith the proposal submitted by you for convening a special meeting of No Confidence Motion against the G.P. President Masughat G.P. and request you to take necessary action as per provision laid down in the Assam Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 Sec. 15(1).
The extract copy of relevant portion of the said Act Sec. 15(1) is enclosed herewith for favour of your kind necessary action.
Encl: As stated above
A.R. Sheikh, ACS
Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Dev.)
Chchar, Silchar”
3. In compliance of the above communication, on 21.03.2014, the BDO wrote to the President, Masughat Gaon Panchayat informing her to attend the special meeting of No Confidence to be convened on 31.03.2014 at 12:30 p.m. in the office of the BDO. On 31.03.2014, the meeting was presided over by BDO. In the meeting, nine members cast their votes in favour of the No Confidence Motion and one member cast vote against the No Confidence Motion. Thus, the President, respondent no. 6 herein, lost her Presidentship and the Vice President, appellant herein, was directed to function as incharge President of the concerned Panchayat for the time being.
4. Being aggrieved by the passing of the No Confidence Motion against her, the respondent no. 6 herein filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2051 of 2014, before the Gauhati High Court. In the writ petition, she challenged the legal acceptability and validity of the resolution expressing want of confidence against her in a special meeting held on 31.03.2014. The learned single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 09.08.2016, allowed the writ petition on the ground that vide letter dated 17.03.2014, the Deputy Commissioner, instead of taking action in the matter, merely wrote back to the BDO to take steps in accordance with Section 15 of the Act and there was no delegation of authority to the BDO to preside over the meeting. No document had been produced showing delegation of authority. It was the Deputy Commissioner who ought to have taken steps in terms of the provisions of the Act by convening a meeting. A meeting convened and presided over by an authority alien to the mandate postulated in Section 15 of the Act could not sanctify the proceeding of a meeting. On this foundation, the resolution adopted expressing no confid
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.