Point of Law : Waiver is a question of conduct and can be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGEMENT :

The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the proceedings of a special meeting, held on 19.02.2021, wherein a motion of no confidence against the President of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat i.e. the petitioner had allegedly been passed by 2/3rd majority against her and all consequential actions taken thereupon. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 25.06.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby, it has been notified that the office of the President of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat has stood vacated and as a consequence, the Vice-President of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat has been allowed to exercise the powers and perform and discharge all the functions and duties of the President of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat.

2. The case of the petitioner, as has been pleaded in the writ petition, is that in the Panchayat General Election held in the year 2019, the petitioner contested the election for the post of President, Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat, District -Nagaon and she got elected for the said post.

2.1. On 19.01.2021, 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat submitted a requisition in writing, addressed to the respondent no. 8 i.e. the Secretary, Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat, with the request to convene a special meeting to discuss a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. It was on 27.01.2021, the respondent no. 8 gave a written notice to the petitioner informing her about the submission of the written requisition in the office of the Gaon Panchayat expressing want of confidence in the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice dated 16.02.2021 from the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, whereby, it was informed to the petitioner that a special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence against the petitioner would be held at 1100 a.m. on 19.02.2021 in the office of the Khagarijan Block Development Office. The petitioner had attended the said special meeting convened for the purpose of discussing the motion of no confidence against her. It is the case of the petitioner that 10 [ten] nos. of Ward Members of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat were present in the special meeting and had also cast their votes through secret ballots.

2.2. The petitioner has asserted that though as per the resolution recorded in connection with the special meeting dated 19.02.2021, the ballot box was opened on that day itself but in fact, the ballot box was not opened during the course of the special meeting. When the petitioner wanted to know as to when the ballot box would be opened, the petitioner was made to understand that the ballot box would be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon for appropriate action and the petitioner would be duly intimated in that connection. It is also pleaded that the petitioner came to know that the respondent no. 4 forwarded the minutes of the special meeting, held on 19.02.2021, to the Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat by a communication dated 20.02.2021 without serving a copy of the same to the petitioner. The petitioner could, however, collect a copy of the said communication dated 20.02.2021 and the minutes of the special meeting dated 19.02.2021 from one of the Ward Members of the Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat after passing of the impugned order dated 25.06.2021 by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon [the respondent no. 2]. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that she submitted a representation before the respondent no. 2 on 26.02.2021 explaining as to why there could be no occasion to express no confidence in her and requested the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate action regarding the motion of no confidence brought against her.

3. I have heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development [P&RD] Department for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 & 8; Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 4; Mr.