SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Gau) 420

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
A.Potsangbam, J.
Md.Abdul Latiff -Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur and Ors.(And another case) -Resopndent
WP(C) No(s). 276 and 280 of 2010
Decided On : 11-06-2010

Advocates Appeared:
Y.Ashang, S.Jayantya, N.Kumarjit, Jalaluddin

Headnote:

Manipur Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Section 57(1) and (2) - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 21 - Election of members - Receipt of requisition - Jurisdiction - As common question of facts and law are involved two writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposal by this common judgment and order - Every or Up shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by majority of total number of elected members of territorial constituencies of at a meeting specially convened for purpose - Requisition for such a special meeting shall be signed by not less than one-third of total membership of Zilla Parishad and shall be delivered Shall within seven days from date of receipt of requisition convene a special meeting of Zilla Parishad - Meeting shall be held on a day not later than fifteen days from date of issue of notice of meeting - Meeting shall be presided over if motion is against Up and in case of Up shall preside over meeting if it is against both a member nominated from amongst themselves by members present in such meeting shall preside over such meeting - In initial two years of their terms as or Up as case may be of Zilla Parishad no motion of no-confidence shall be brought against them - Held, counsel appearing for respondents submits that from facts pleaded and placed before court there cannot be any denial that had lost support of majority in Zilla Parishad inasmuch as ten out of sixteen elected members have initiated and voted in favour of no confidence against - In such circumstances case of petitioner in WP and other case filed by his supporter should be rejected outright as they do not merit any consideration of this court - All these cases have been filed only for purpose of derailing basic democratic process at grass root level - Notice and special meeting held do not suffer from any legal infirmity and once notice convening a special meeting is issued by office of has become unctuous officio and no authority is left with either to issue second or third notice modifying/cancelling or keeping earlier notice in abeyance - Further have no power or authority to keep a special meeting in abeyance without any time limit - Petitions dismissed

1. Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 276/2010 and Mr. S. Jayanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 280/2010. Also heard Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Government respondents and Md. Jalaluddin, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 4 to 13 in WP(C) No. 276/2010 and private respondent No. 7 in WP(C) No. 280/2010.

2. As common question of facts and law are involved, the two writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposal by this common judgment and order.

3. Thoubal Zilla Parishad, Thoubal, ('the Zilla Parishad'), consisting of 16 elected members, was constituted on 28.9.2007 in accordance with the provisions of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (the Act of 1994) and the terms of the Zilla Parishad so constituted would be for 5(five) years from the date of its first meeting. Adhyaksha and Up-Aadhayaksha are elected from amongst the elected members and they continue in office as long as they enjoy confidence of the majority of the members.

4. Section 57(1) and (2) of the Act of 1994 provide for resignation of Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha from their office. In the instant cases, we are concerned with section 57(4)(a) of the Act of 1994 as the controversy involved in both the cases relates to no-confidence motion brought against the Adhyaksha in terms of section 57(4)(a) of the Act of 1994 and election of a new Adhyaksha. Section 57(4)(a) is quoted hereinbelow:

"57(4)(a) Every Adhyaksha or Up-Adhyaksha shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by the majority of the total number of elected members of territorial constituencies of the Zilla Parishad at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. The requisition for such a special meeting shall be signed by not less than one-third of the total membership of the Zilla Parishad and shall be delivered to the Adhyaksha. The Adhyaksha shall within seven days from the date of receipt of the requisition, convene a special meeting of the Zilla Parishad. The meeting shall be held on a day not later than fifteen days from the date of issue of the notice of the meeting. The meeting shall be presided over Adhyaksha if the motion is against the Up-Adhyaksha and in the case of Adhyaksha, the Up-Adhyaksha shall preside over the meeting, if it is against both, a member nominated from amongst themselves by the members present in such meeting shall preside over such meeting. In the initial two years of their terms as Adhyaksha or Up-Adhyaksha, as the case may be, of Zilla Parishad, no motion of no-confidence shall be brought against them.

(b) If the motion of no-confidence against the Adhyaksha or Up-Adhyaksha or both is once rejected, no fresh motion of no-confidence against the Adhyaksha or Up-Adhyaksha or both, as the case may be, shall be brought before the Zilla Parishad within a period of one year from the date of rejection of the motion:

"Provided that if the Adhyaksha fails to convene the said meeting within the stipulated time, the members shall request the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose, who shall, within five days from the date on which he receives the request, direct the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad to convene the meeting within seven days.

Provided that the withdrawal of no confidence motion against the Adhyaksha or Up-Adhyaksha or both, as the case may be, shall not be allowed."

5. The above extracted provisions of section 57(4)(a) of the Act would clearly demonstrate that if a requisition signed by not less than one-third of the total memberships of the Zilla Parishad is submitted to the Adhyaksha for convening a special meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion either against the Adhyaksha or the Up-Adhyaksha, the Adhyaksha is statutorily obligated to convene the special meeting within a period of 7(seven) days from the date of receipt of



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top