1. No confidence motion against Gaon Panchayat President under Section 15(1), Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 — Meeting convened and presided over by Block Development Officer instead of Deputy Commissioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 953
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
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
If the requirement or condition precedent is for benefit or interest of a particular person, the same can be waived by him if no public interest is affected.
If the requirement or condition precedent is for benefit or interest of a particular person, the same can be waived by him if no public interest is affected.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Panchayati Raj
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Interpretation of statute – Requirement of following mandatory provision – Exception – If the requirement or condition is for benefit or interest of a particular person, the same can be waived by him if no public interest is affected – The ultimate result would be valid even if the requirement or condition is not performed. (Para 13)
(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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of no confidence resolution — Whether a meeting convened and presided over by a Block Development Officer without express delegation from the Deputy Commissioner is legally valid. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Participation of the beneficiary in the meeting — Waiver of procedural irregularities when a mandatory provision for a person's benefit is not strictly followed but they participate. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Mandatory statutory requirements for the benefit of a specific person can be waived by that person through participation, provided no public interest is affected. (Para 13 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned judgments set aside — Resolution expressing no confidence against the President held valid. (Para 14 )
6. Can a mandatory statutory procedure be waived by a party?
Yes, if a statutory requirement or condition is provided for the benefit or interest of a particular person and no public interest is involved, that person can waive the requirement, rendering the ultimate result valid. (Para 13 )
7. What is the legal effect of a beneficiary participating in a procedurally flawed meeting?
If a person who is the beneficiary of a procedural safeguard participates in the proceedings knowing the purpose of the meeting, they are deemed to have waived the condition precedent. (Para 13 )
8. Who is authorized to convene and preside over a no confidence motion under Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994?
The meeting must be convened by the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), who shall also preside, although they may depute a Class-I Gazetted Officer to preside if they are unable to do so. (Para 8 , 9 )
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
