Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Gau) 192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Jeleka Khatun W/o -Julhash Ali - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Assam through the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Dispur, Ghy - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 3367 of 2021
Decided On : 29-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant :Mr. R. Ali, Advocate
For The Respondent:Mr. A. Roy, Mr. R. Talukdar Junior Government Advocate, Assam, Mr. B.C. Das, Senior Advocate, Mr. Mr. J.H. Saikia.

Point of Law : Duty of the Chairman/Vice-Chairman to face the no-confidence motion, as they were elected office-bearers and if they had lost the confidence of the majority to continue as such office-bearers and a no-confidence motion had been moved against them by following due procedure.

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 – Section 6(1)(b) and 18(5) – Election petition - Panchayat election - General Panchayat Election held petitioner got elected to post of President of Panchayat under Panchayat and Zilla Parishad, District - Respondent were also elected as Ward Members from different Wards of Gaon Panchayat in said Panchayat Election - After declaration of results, respondent herein has been elected as Vice-President of Gaon Panchayat - Petitioner has averred that she was informed by respondent Secretary of Panchayat that 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of Gaon Panchayat had submitted a requisition seeking holding of a special meeting to discuss a motion of no confidence in her - Whether he/she is President or the Vice-President, in special meeting convened for purpose of discussing motion of no confidence against such office bearer.
Finding of the Court:
Advocate General of State had to preside over meeting and no-confidence motion was stated to have been passed by requisite majority of members present in meeting - Commenting on approach, taken by Chairman/Vice-Chairman, of leaving special meeting in midway, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had held that approach adopted by them was ex-facie untenable and without any basis - It was the duty of Chairman/Vice-Chairman to face no-confidence motion, as they were elected office-bearers and if they had lost the confidence of majority to continue as such office-bearers and a no-confidence motion had been moved against them by following due procedure, they were expected to face consequences thereof and the same only would have served the ends of democratic governance and proper functioning of the State Bar Council - Hon’ble Supreme Court had, thus, held that even on that ground, any challenge to passing of the no-confidence motion cannot succeed - Reverting back to fact situation obtaining in case in hand, this Court is of view that observations made in Pratap Chandra Mehta [supra] are also applicable to case in hand - Consequently, writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
Result: Writ petition is dismissed

JUDGEMENT :

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the writ petitioner assailing inter alia a resolution adopted on 01.07.2021 in a special meeting convened for the purpose of discussing a motion of no confidence in the petitioner as the President of 60 No. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner has also challenged a notice dated 19.06.2021 whereby 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of 60 no. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat submitted a requisition for convening a special meeting to discuss a motion of no confidence against the petitioner who was the President of 60 no. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner has also challenged a notice dated 25.06.2021 issued by the Secretary, 60 no. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat whereby all the stake holders were put to notice that a special meeting had been convened on 01.07.2021 to discuss a motion of no confidence in the President of 60 no. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat i.e. the petitioner.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the institution of the writ petition can be exposited as follows : In the General Panchayat Election held in the year 2018, the petitioner got elected to the post of President of 60 no. Kandhbari Dagapara Gaon Panchayat [hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Gaon Panchayat’, for brevity at places] under Barkhetri Anchalik Panchayat and Nalbari Zilla Parishad, District – Nagaon. The respondent nos. 7 to 13 were also elected as Ward Members from different Wards of the Gaon Panchayat in the said Panchayat Election. After the declaration of the results, the respondent no. 7 herein has been elected as the Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat.

3. The petitioner has averred that she was informed by the respondent no. 6 i.e. the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 24.06.2021 that 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat had submitted a requisition dated 19.06.2021 seeking holding of a special meeting to discuss a motion of no confidence in her. As the petitioner was suffering from certain ailments, she asked the respondent no. 6 to wait for 10/12 days so as to enable her to attend such special meeting after improvement in her health condition. But the respondent no. 6 along with the peon of the Gaon Panchayat met the petitioner and served the requisition with the assurance that the respondent no. 6 would hold the meeting only after the petitioner would accord her formal approval. The petitioner has contended that the respondent no. 6 had, however, without waiting for her formal approval and improvement in her health condition issued a notice dated 25.06.2021, whereby, it was informed to the stake-holders that a special meeting to discuss the no confidence motion in the President of the Gaon Panchayat had been convened on 01.07.2021. As the petitioner was undergoing treatment, she stated to have submitted an application on 29.06.2021 before the respondent no. 6 to postpone the meeting, which was already convened on 01.07.2021 by the notice dated 25.06.2021. The respondent no. 6 did not take any action on the said letter dated 29.06.2021 of the petitioner and went on to hold the special meeting on 01.07.2021.

4. I have heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development [P&RD] Department for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 & 6; Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 2; and Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. J.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7-13.

5. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the resolution of no confidence against the petitioner was passed in the special meeting convened and held on 01.07.2021 in absence of the petitioner. He has contended that the respondent no. 6 did not bring the requisition containing the request to convene the special meeting submitted by the 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Gau) 192

Point of Law : Duty of the Chairman/Vice-Chairman to face the no-confidence motion, as they were elected office-bearers and if they had lost the confidence of the majority to continue as such office-bearers and a no-confidence motion had been moved against them by following due procedure.

Cases Referred (1)