Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
BABY BEGUM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. G. Uddin, leaned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. B. Deori, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3 and Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7.
2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the inaction of the respondent no. 3 in not convening the special meeting for no confidence motion against the Vice President of Bandorkona Gaon Panchayat which as per the petitioners is in violation to Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994).
3. The brief facts of the instant case is that the petitioners are elected Gaon Panchayat Members of the Bandorkona Gaon Panchayat under Patharkandi Anchalik Panchayat in Karimganj District of Assam. The petitioners on 17.10.2019 submitted a requisition notice to the Secretary of Bandorkona Gaon Panchayat for convening a special meeting of no confidence motion against the Vice President of the said Gaon Panchayat. The Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat duly acknowledged the said requisition notice on 17.10.2019 and placed the same before the Vice Pres
Failure to convene a meeting for a no confidence motion against the Vice President in violation of Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.
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 ....
In a judicial proceeding any interference of an order which a person may be beneficiary of cannot be initiated and concluded without issuing notice to person who is beneficiary.
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.
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....
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.
By Clause [4] of Article 243C, right to vote in meeting of Panchayat has been made limited to Chairperson of a Panchayat and other members of a Panchayat whether or not chosen by direct election from....
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
