Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Labanya Pait Doley, W/o. Sri Puspa Doley - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Guwahati & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 2868 of 2024
Decided On : 23-07-2024
MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE - SILAPATHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD REMOVAL - ASSAM MUNICIPAL ACT, 1956 - SECTIONS 28, 39, 41, 43, 296 - The court analyzed the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, particularly Sections 28 and 41, which govern the removal and election of the Chairperson. It interpreted that the Executive Officer lacked authority to cancel a statutory meeting and that the Model Code of Conduct did not prohibit the meeting to discuss a No Confidence Motion. The court concluded that the removal of the petitioner was valid, but the subsequent election of a new Chairperson was void due to procedural deficiencies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Chairperson of the Silapathar Municipal Board, was removed following a special meeting requisitioned by seven Ward Commissioners. The petitioner challenged this removal, arguing that the meeting was improperly convened and that the Executive Officer's cancellation of a prior meeting was unauthorized.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the special meeting held on 29.05.2024 at 10:30 AM was valid and did not require interference. However, the subsequent meeting at 2:30 PM on the same day, which elected a new Chairperson, was deemed void due to lack of notice and procedural compliance.
Issues: 1. Whether the minutes of the Special Board Meeting held on 29.05.2024 at 10:30 AM require interference? 2. Whether the minutes of the Special Board Meeting held on 29.05.2024 at 2:30 PM are nonest and void ab initio? 3. What reliefs are the parties entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Executive Officer had no authority to cancel the statutory meeting and that the Model Code of Conduct did not bar the discussion of a No Confidence Motion. The court emphasized that the removal of the Chairperson must follow the statutory provisions outlined in the Assam Municipal Act, 1956.
Final Decision: The court upheld the validity of the removal of the petitioner from the Chairperson position but declared the election of the new Chairperson void. The Vice-Chairperson was directed to fill the vacancy within 45 days, while ensuring no major policy decisions were made during this interim period.
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as Mr. R. P. Sharma, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Doley, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the minutes of the special meeting held on 29.05.2024 at 10:30 AM whereby the petitioner who was the Chairperson of the Silapathar Municipal Board was removed.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition is that the petitioner herein was elected as the Chairperson of the Silapathar Municipal Board on 12.04.2022. It is relevant to take note of that the Silapathar Municipal Board constituted of 12 elected Ward Commissioners, 2 Ex-Officio members who are the concerned MLA and the MP. It is an admitted fact that out of the 12 elected Ward Commissioners, one elected Ward Commissioner had resigned.
4. A letter was issued on 01.12.2023 by 7 Ward Commissioners requesting the District Commissioner, Dhemaji Town to terminate the petitioner from the post of the Chairperson. In pursuance to the said communication, the District Commissioner, Dhemaji vide an email dated 12.12.2023 directed the petitioner to convene a Board meeting within 15 days from the receipt of the said letter. Pursuant thereto, a meeting was called on 05.01.2024 at 2:30 PM. The said meeting was decided in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the private respondents filed a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.168/2024. The said writ petition was disposed of vide the judgment and order dated 29.04.2024 holding inter-alia that the District Commissioner has no jurisdiction or authority to issue direction to call for the meeting. However, taking into account the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’), this Court left it open to the private respondents to take steps for calling for a special meeting in accordance with the provision of the Act of 1956 for a No Confidence Motion against the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson, if so desired.
5. Pursuant thereto, the private respondents who were 7 in numbers submitted a request for convening a special meeting under Section 28 of the Act of 1956 for discussion of No Confidence Motion against the Chairperson. The petitioner upon receipt of the said communication informed the Executive Officer of the Silapathar Municipal Board vide a communication dated 17.05.2024 that he has called the meeting at 11:00 AM on 24.05.2024 pursuant to the said request so made. The Executive Officer on receipt of the said communication issued by the petitioner informed the petitioner vide the communication dated 20.05.2024 that in view of the Lok Sabha election, 2024 and the Model Code of Conduct being operational, the meeting should be withheld till 04.06.2024 and the petitioner was accordingly directed to cancel/withdraw the special meeting which was scheduled to be held on 24.05.2024. Immediately on receiving the said communication from the Executive Officer of the Silapathar Municipal Board, the petitioner vide the communication informed the various Ward Commissioners about the cancellation of the said meeting.
6. It is also seen that on 23.05.2024, the Executive Officer of Silapathar Municipal Board also informed the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson as well as Ward Commissioners of Silapathar Municipal Board that he advised against the convening of the special meeting on account of the Model Code of Conduct and that he would not be able to join the meeting in connection with Silapathar Municipal Board. The private respondents thereupon on 27.05.2024 requisitioned another meeting on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner to hold the meeting as per the requisition and fixed 29.05.2024 at 10:30 AM to discuss about the No Confidence Motion a
The court established that the Executive Officer cannot interfere with the statutory process of removing a Chairperson under the Assam Municipal Act, and that the Model Code of Conduct does not preve....
The removal of a Chairperson by a motion of no confidence supported by a majority of Ward Commissioners is valid under the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, and does not require government approval.
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....
The court upheld the validity of the no confidence motion requisition under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, confirming the necessity for clear allegations and the petitioner's failure to disclose key fa....
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
