IMPORTANT POINT
A no-confidence motion against a Gaon Panchayat President is not deemed 'lost' due to procedural irregularities, allowing for a fresh motion to be initiated without the six-month bar.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, C.J.

The instant writ appeal is directed against the judgment & final order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of WP(C) No.6853/2022 preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner with a direction to re-convene the meeting of the Bajiagaon Gaon Panchayat for considering the no-confidence motion initiated by 10(ten) Members of the said Gaon Panchayat against the appellant/writ petitioner being the elected President of the said Gaon Panchayat.

2. It may be mentioned here that the meeting in pursuance of the requisition dated 13.05.2022 was held on 28.07.2022 and the resolution of no-confidence was passed. The appellant/writ petitioner challenged the resolution on the ground that the same was undertaken in gross violation of the provisions of Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) inasmuch as, requisition notice was not served upon the appellant/writ petitioner, i.e. the President, who would then be required to call the meeting within 18(eighteen) days. Since the notice under Section 15 of the Act was never served upon the appellant/writ petitioner, the no-confidence motion was assailed.

3. The learned Single Judge, while entertaining the writ petition, passed an interim order, whereby the effect and operation of the no-confidence resolution was stayed. While finally deciding the writ petition, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order, whereby the fresh no-confidence meeting was directed to be held in accordance with Section 15 of the Act. It is to be noted that the order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned Single Judge, does not clearly indicate that the original resolution dated 28.07.2022 had been quashed. Be that as it may. By deemed effect of the impugned order, this position can be presumed. The appellant/writ petitioner has questioned the validity of the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge to the extent, a fresh meeting was directed to be convened on the ground that the initial motion having failed on account of non-adherence to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act, the fresh no confidence motion would not be held before expiry of 6(six) months.

4. Mr. N. Haque, learned counsel representing the appellant/writ petitioner, referred to the provisions contained in Section 15(1) of the Act and urged that the direction given by the learned Single Judge to hold a fresh meeting is invalid in the eyes of law, because the requisition dated 13.05.2022 has been interfered with by the learned Single Judge and thus, as on the date of the decision of the writ petition, there was no valid requisition pending so as to warrant holding of a fresh meeting. He thus, implored the Court to accept the appeal and stay/reverse the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the extent, it was ordered to hold a fresh meeting to consider the no-confidence proceedings initiated against the appellant/writ petitioner.

5. Per contra, Mr. K. Konwar, learned standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department; Ms. S. Konwar, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos.8 to 17 opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. Attention of the Court was drawn by the learned counsel representing the respondents to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Forhana Begum Laskar -Vs-State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2009 (3) GLT 575 and it was contended that the view taken by the Full Bench in the said judgment, covers the controversy to the hilt inasmuch as, as the initial meeting of the no-confidence was interfered on account of procedural flaws, the bar not to initiate such a motion within next 6(six) months as imposed by second proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act would not apply because the motion was not lost. It was interfered only on account of a technical/procedural flaw. The learned counsel for the res