IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has laid a challenge to a Resolution adopted on 25.07.2024 in a meeting of the Titabor Municipal Board, whereby, the petitioner was removed from the post of Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. The petitioner has also challenged a Resolution adopted in a separate meeting held on 25.07.2024 by the Ward Commissioners of Titabor Municipal Board, whereby, the respondent no. 8 was elected as the new Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board for the unexpired term. The petitioner has also simultaneously challenged a Resolution adopted on 25.10.2024 by the Ward Commissioners of Titabor Municipal Board, whereby, the respondent no. 8 has once again been elected as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board.

2. The Titabor Municipal Board is a Municipal Board constituted under Section 10 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 , as amended [‘the Act, 1956’ or ‘the 1956 Act’, for short].

3. As per provisions contained in Section 26 [1] of the Act, 1956, every Municipality unless sooner dissolved under Section 298, shall continue for five years from the date of first meeting of newly constituted Board after a General Election at which quorum is present. As per sub-section [2] of Section 33 of the Act, 1956, at the first meeting of a Municipal Board after a General Election called at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, the Commissioners are to elect one from amongst the elected Commissioners to be the Chairman. The election is subject to the approval of the State Government but pending such approval, the person elected shall be competent to discharge the duties of the Chairperson. As per sub-section [3] of Section 33, the Commissioners at the said first meeting or at a subsequent meeting, are to elect one of their elected Commissioners to be the Vice-Chairperson.

4. In the last General Election held for Ward Commissioners of Titabor Municipal Board, the petitioner stood elected as a Ward Commissioner from Ward no. 1. After the General Election, the petitioner was elected as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board as per the provisions of sub-section [2] of Section 33 of the Act, 1956. After being elected as the Chairperson, the petitioner was discharging her duties or as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board.

5. When the petitioner was discharging the duties as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board, two requisitions came to be submitted on 28.06.2024 and 29.06.2024 by four Ward Commissioners each expressing want of confidence in the petitioner to continue as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board and by the said requisitions, the requisitionists called for a special meeting to decide the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner to continue as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. In the Titabor Municipal Board, there were ten elected Ward Commissioners, at the relevant point.

6. Section 43 of the Act, 1956 has provided for ordinary and special meetings. As per sub-section [2] of Section 43, the Chairperson or in his absence, the Vice- Chairperson may call a special meeting whenever he thinks fit and shall call one on a requisition signed by not less than three of the Ward Commissioners. It has been provided in sub-section [3] of Section 43 that if the Chairperson or the Vice- Chairperson fails to call a special meeting to meet within twenty days after any such requisition has been made, the meeting can be called by the persons who signed the requisition.

7. It transpires that the petitioner did not call for a special meeting within a period of twenty days despite receipt of the requisitions, mentioned above, from eight of the Ward Commissioners. It has further emerged that the Additional District Commissioner, In-Charge, Titabor had also requested the petitioner to ca