Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 898
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Monir Uddin, S/o. Lt. Abdul Motleb - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam (PRD) Deptt. - Respondents
WP(C) 6566 OF 2016
Decided On : 24-08-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Choudhury, Sr. Adv. Mr. A.M. Khan, Adv.
For the Respondents:Mr. Y. Doloi, AAG, Assam. Mr. R. Ali, Advocate.
The mandatory nature of notice requirements and the need for strict interpretation of the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.
Headnote:
PANCHAYAT ACT - Removal of President - Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, Section 15(5), Section 17(3) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 15(5) and Section 17(3) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, which mandate the procedure for convening a special meeting and the requirement of notice for the same. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the notice period and the need for strict interpretation of the provisions. The court also considered the disputed facts regarding the service of notice and the endorsement in the Peon Book, ultimately concluding that the claim of the petitioner based on disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceeding.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, President of a Gaon Panchayat, challenged the resolution adopted in a meeting for his removal, citing non-compliance with the notice requirements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claim of the petitioner was based on disputed facts and could not be conclusively determined in a Writ proceeding.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with the notice requirements for convening a special meeting and the disputed facts regarding the service of notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claim of the petitioner based on disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in the present proceeding.
Final Decision: The writ petition was closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum seeking redressal of grievances.
1. Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Additional Advocate, Assam, representing the official respondents as well as Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel representing the private respondents.
2. In this writ petition, the resolution adopted in the meeting of the 73 No. Tarakandi Gaon Panchayat, on 27/10/2016, removing the writ petitioner from the post of President of the Gaon Panchayat has been put to challenge.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was elected as the President of the aforesaid Gaon Panchayat in the elections held in the year 2013. On 12/10/2016, 6 (six) members of the said Gaon Panchayat submitted a requisition requesting for convening a special meeting to discuss no-confidence proposal brought against the President and the Vice President of the Gaon Panchayat. In terms of Section 15(5) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, when a request for special meeting is submitted for removal of both the President and the Vice President, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat is required to report the matter to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat, who is to arrange to convene the meeting within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the intimation. Accordingly, on 17/10/2016, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had forwarded the requisition to the concerned Anchalik Panchayat. On 20/10/2016, the Executive Officer of the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat had issued a notice convening the meeting for discussion of ‘no confidence motion’ brought against the President of the Gaon Panchayat i.e. the writ petitioner herein, fixing the date of meeting on 27/10/2016. The Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had sent a copy of the notice to the writ petitioner through the Office Peon Book but the notes in the Peon Book goes to show that the petitioner had refused to accept the notice. A copy of the notice was also sent to the writ petitioner by Registered post, which was received by his brother on 25/10/2016. The meeting was held on 27/10/2016, whereby the majority of 2/3rd members of the Gaon Panchayat had adopted the resolution no.1 removing the petitioner from the post of President. However, the petitioner was not present in the meeting. It appears that the meeting fixed on the next date i.e. 28/10/2016 for discussing the ‘no confidence motion’ against the Vice President was called off.
4. Inviting the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act of 1994, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the requirement of 3 clear days notice in case of a special meeting is mandatory. That apart, submits Mr. Choudhury, the requirement to affix the notice on the notice board of the Gaon Panchayat office by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat is also a mandatory requirement of law which is in addition to 3 clear days notice to be given by the Secretary by sending a copy thereof to the President. But in the present case, submits Mr. Choudhury, no notice of the meeting was served upon the Writ Petitioner giving three clear days notice as per requirement of law.
5. Denying the entries made in the Peon Book which indicated that the petitioner had refused to accept the notice when served upon him by the Peon on 22/10/2016, Mr. Choudhury had pointed out that the affidavit sworn by the only Office Peon, viz. Abdul Gaffur on 13/02/2017 testifying that he had not served any notice upon the writ petitioner during the said period, clearly goes to show that the claim of the respondents that the petitioner had refused to accept the notice of the meeting on 22/10/2016 is completely false and fabricated. The learned senior counsel further submits that although the receipt of the notice by registered post on 25/10/2016 is not denied by the petitioner, yet, in view of the categorical mandate of Section 17(3) of the Act of 1994, the same would not constitute 3
