The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the VDP Secretary must comply with the resolutions taken in the General Meeting and the Rules of 1986.

The instant petition has been filed for review of the judgment and order dated 12.10.2023 passed in WP(C)/3053/2022. By the aforesaid judgment, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned communication dated 07.04.2022 relating to the formation of Durgamari VDP with the respondent no. 5 as the Secretary was set aside. It is the said respondent no. 5 who has filed the instant application for review.

2. For better appreciation of the issue involved, a brief narration of the facts would be convenient.

3. The opposite party no. 1 herein (Nausad Ali) had filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated 07.04.2022 constituting the Durgamari VDP with the respondent no. 5 as the Secretary. It was projected that the opposite party was the Secretary in the earlier tenure of 5 years from 2016 to 2022 and was a contender for the said post along with the present applicant. In the general meeting held on 27.02.2022 , it was resolved that though there were certain allegations against the writ petitioner, the same were found to be false and the meeting had ultimately left the decision to be taken by the OC and IC of the concerned police station and outpost, who were present in the meeting. The said two officers, after deliberation and considering the credibility of the two candidates had selected the writ petitioner as the Secretary of the said VDP and it was projected that the VDP was accordingly constituted with the petitioner as its Secretary. The grievance of the writ petitioner was however with regard to the communication dated 07.04.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon wherein for the Durgamari VDP, the opposite party herein / respondent no. 5 was shown to be the Secretary.

4. It was contended that the majority of the people in the meeting were in support of the writ petitioner and for some extraneous consideration and political influence, the respondent no. 5 was given the appointment. It was also contended that there was no bar for re-appointment of an incumbent as Secretary after completion of the earlier tenure. It was also submitted that even in terms of qualification, the writ petitioner was better qualified having passed the Higher Secondary Examination whereas the respondent no. 5 does not have any formal education.

5. Though the State respondents had contested the writ petition, the respondent no. 5 did not appear. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the tenure of the earlier Committee in which the writ petitioner had served as a Secretary was already over and therefore a change was made. Further, vide communication dated 30.03.2022 the OC had forwarded the name of the respondent no. 5.

6. This Court, after hearing had come to the conclusion that the order dated 7.04.2022 of appointment of the respondent no. 5 as the Secretary of the VDP did not contain any reasons and was contrary to the resolutions taken in the General Meeting dated 27.02.2022. The impugned communication dated 07.04.2022 was accordingly set aside and the said VDP was directed to be constituted with the writ petitioner as its Secretary.

7. It is the aforesaid order dated 12.10.2023 of this Court which is the subject matter of the review petition.

8. I have heard Shri BD Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri J. Lotha, learned counsel for the review applicant. Also heard Shri MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the opposite party / writ petitioner. Shri R. Dhar, learned State Counsel has appeared for the official respondents and has also produced the records in original pursuant to the earlier directions of this Court.

9. Shri Das, learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant has submitted that the writ petition was filed by gross suppression of material facts. He submits that the entire premises on which this Court had proceeded was on the projection made on behalf of the writ petitioner that appointment in the post of Secretary is made by a resolution of a General Meeting. He submits that the said projection is entirel