The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, particularly section 28(2), regarding the removal of an elected chairman from office and the requirement of approval by the Administrative Department for the resolution to take legal effect.

1. A notice of no confidence motion against the petitioner, who was elected as the chairman of the Lanka Municipal Board, was submitted by 6(six) members of the Board on 29.8.2005. On receipt of the said requisition/notice, a meeting of the Board was convened on 19.9.2005 to discuss the no confidence motion. In the said meeting 6(six) members subscribed to the vote of no confidence. Thereafter, on 1.10.2005, the respondent No. 6 was elected as the new chairman of the Board. The said election was approved by the authority in the Municipal Administration Department on 8.11.2005. All the aforesaid actions and orders have been put to challenge in the present writ petitions

2. The brief facts, which will be necessary; to be noticed for an effective adjudication of the questions arising in the present writ petition, may be stated as hereunder :

The petitioner was elected as a Member of the Lanka Municipal Board from Ward No. 4 in the year 2004. Thereafter, he was elected as the chairman of the Board and in the normal course the petitioner was to e have a tenure up to the year 2009. According to the petitioner, on account of the exemplary nature of works done and performed by him, certain members within the Board nourished a grievance against the petitioner and as a sequel thereto on 29.8.2005 6(six) members of the Board including the Vice-chairman gave a notice of no confidence motion against the petitioner. It is the petitioner's own pleaded case that on examination of the no confidence motion, the petitioner found the same to be in order and, therefore, convened a meeting to discuss the motion on 19.9.2005. According to the petitioner, in the said meeting held on 19.9.2005, he had explained the situation to all the members, who ^ appeared to be satisfied with the explanation furnished. However, by resolution No. 2 adopted in the said meeting dated 19.9.2005, the no confidence motion was accepted by 6(six) Members. According to the petitioner, the resolution was sent to the Municipal Administration Department as well as to the local Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil).

The petitioner has further pleaded in the writ petition filed that 5(five) Members of the Board including 3(three) persons, who had requisitioned the meeting to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner, submitted a letter dated 22.9.2005 to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) expressing full confidence in the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the .Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) had sent both the resolution dated a 19.9.2005 and the aforesaid better dated 22.9.2005 to the Director, Municipal Administration, Assam. While the matter was so situated, another meeting of the Board was convened on 1.10.2005 with the agenda of election of the chairman. This was at the instance of the Vice-Chairman. On receipt of the notice of the said meeting, the petitioner filed his objection saying that no order for his removal had yet been passed by any authority and, therefore, he must be deemed to have been continuing in the post of Chairman. However, according to the petitioner, the meeting scheduled for 1.10.2005 was held and in the said meeting the respondent No. 6 was elected as the chairman.

3. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner had instituted a writ proceeding before this court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 7207 of 2005. In the said writ petition the petitioner has challenged the Notice dated 29.8.2005 and the proceedings of the meeting held on 1.10.2005 in which the respondent No. 6 was elected as the chairman. The meeting dated 19.9.2005 has, however, not been challenged in the said writ petition filed. By an interim order of the court dated 5.10.2005, the resolution dated 1.10.2005 electing the respondent No. 6 as the chairman was stayed by the court. However, subsequently, on 8.11.2005, the aforesaid interim order of the court was vacated on the ground that in the writ petition filed, i.e., WP(C) No. 7207/2005, the petitioner had not sp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document