Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANDEEP MEHTA, MITALI THAKURIA, JJ.
Harmila Begum W/o Nazrul Hoque – Appellant
Versus
Ruhul Amin S/o Late Eklasur Rahman – Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 72, 106 of 2023
Decided On : 01-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 - Section 15, (1), 17(1), (3) - Gaon Panchayat - Motion of no-confidence - Requisition notice was never brought to knowledge - Appellant filed petition alleging inter alia that requisition notice was never brought to his knowledge by Secretary of Gaon Panchayat - Resolution of no-confidence drawn against appellant was interfered with and quashed by learned Single Judge on technical ground that meeting was convened before expiry of period of 15(fifteen) days from date of service of requisition notice - Para 10.
Finding of the Court: Resolution of no-confidence drawn against appellant was interfered with and quashed by learned Single Judge on technical ground that meeting was convened before expiry of period of 15(fifteen) days from date of service of requisition notice and thus same was in contravention to prescription under Section 15(1) of 1994 Act - Motion was not lost but was rather interfered with on purely a technical ground - No-confidence motion was not interfered on any substantive grounds but was rather quashed on account of a procedural defect, learned Single Judge committed no error whatsoever in directing that a fresh meeting would be convened by appellant after complying requirement of Section 15 of 1994 Act – Court do not find any justifiable cause to interfere with well reasoned judgment of learned Single Judge.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Key Points: - The judgment clarifies that "lost" should be interpreted in text and context, indicating a motion may be defeated on merits or due to substantive reasons, not merely due to procedural defects (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court held that procedural defects do not automatically cause a no-confidence motion to be lost, and interference on such grounds does not bar fresh action within six months unless proven on merits or caused by deliberate abandonment (!) (!) (!) . - Because the no-confidence motion against the appellant was quashed for procedural reasons, the court directed a fresh meeting to be convened after complying with Section 15 requirements, and dismissed the appeals as lacking merit (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. These two appeals take an exception to the judgment & final order dated 07.02.2023 rendered by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 6971/2022 (Ruhul Amin vs. State of Assam and Others), whereby the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India preferred by the writ petitioner (appellant in Writ Appeal No. 72/2023), was accepted.
2. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 72/2023, namely, Ruhul Amin, is the elected President of Anipur Gaon Panchayat. The appellants in the connected Writ Appeal No. 106/2023 are the 9 (nine) Ward Members (respondent Nos.8 to 16 in the writ petition), who introduced a no-confidence motion against the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 72/2023, who is the elected President of the said Gaon Panchayat. It is the claim of the appellant Ruhul Amin that he was assaulted and was hospitalized from 23.09.2022 to 1.10.2022 and thus, no steps pursuant to receiving the requisition notice under Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “1994 Act”) dated 26.09.2022 could be taken. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat referred the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat in accordance with the provisions as contained in Section 15(1) of the 1994 Act. The meeting at the Anchalik Panchayat was convened on 17.10.2022 and the motion was carried through.
3. The appellant Ruhul Amin filed the writ petition, being, WP(C) 6971/2022 alleging inter alia that the requisition notice dated 26.09.2022 was never brought to his knowledge by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat.
The learned Single Judge held that there was no proof on record to show service of the requisition notice dated 26.09.2022 upon the appellant Ruhul Amin. The respondent No. 7 in the writ petition, who is the Secretary of the Anipur Gaon Panchayat, could not have assumed jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat on 12.10.2022, i.e. well before the expiry of 15 (fifteen) days from 01.10.2022. Accordingly, the resolution dated 17.10.2022 was held to have been drawn pursuant to an illegal meeting and thus, the same was quashed. However, the appellant Ruhul Amin being the elected President of the Anipur Gaon Panchayat, was directed to convene a special meeting of the Gaon Panchayat to consider the motion of no-confidence brought against him by 9 (nine) Ward Members by following the procedure prescribed under Section 17(3) of the 1994 Act.
4. The appellant Ruhul Amin has preferred the writ appeal being Writ Appeal No. 72/2023 questioning the direction given by the learned Single Judge to convene the special meeting, contending that once the motion of no-confidence is interfered by the High Court while exercising the high prerogative writ jurisdiction, a fresh meeting to consider the motion cannot be convened before expiry of 6(six) months, as mandated by second proviso to Section 15(1) of the 1994 Act.
5. The appellants in Writ Appeal No. 106/2023 have challenged the very same order dated 07.02.2023 on the ground that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, while interfering with the no-confidence motion taken in pursuance of a lawfully convened meeting at the Anchalik Panchayat, is totally unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the 1994 Act. It was contended that notice of the special meeting to be convened at the Anchalik Panchayat was duly served on the appellant/writ petitioner Ruhul Amin and the view taken by the learned Single Judge holding that the notice was not served, amounts to causing interference into the disputed question of facts and hence, the judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be quashed.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the material available on record.
7. The learned Single Judge for holding that the notice of the special meeting was not properly served upon the appellant made the discussion in Paragraphs 16, 17 and 17. 1, which
Word ‘lost’ appearing in 2nd proviso to section 15(1), in deference to fundamental principles of statutory interpretation, has to be essentially comprehended in text and context in which it appears.
Section 15 of Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 have been held to be directory and not mandatory, any resolution adopted cannot be faulted with merely because time limit prescribed under Section 15(1) have n....
Point of Law : Section 17 [3] of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 has clearly stipulated that in case of any special meeting [which is a meeting for no confidence motion], 3 [three] days' clear notice h....
Section 15(2) of Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 which provides for giving notice to President for purpose of holding a No Confidence Motion is mandatory and non compliance of such mandatory provision and ....
Point of Law : Process subsequent to requisition notices expressing want of confidence had failed finally either on technical grounds or due to procedural irregularities, this Court, thus, is of the ....
The Notice for the special meeting was found to be in violation of the statutory prescription of 3 clear days' notice as per Section 17[3] of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
