Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Usha Barua - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
W.P. © 287 of 2012 & [Alongwith W.Ps. © 408, 409 and 446 of 2012]
Decided On : 10-01-2014
The court held that the three writ petitioners were disqualified from being members of the Gram Panchayat (FGP) due to their disobedience of a party whip issued by the authorized person of the INC party. The court found that the whip was read over in the meeting called by the District Panchayat Officer to move the no-confidence motion against the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan, and that the petitioners were present in the meeting and had signed the resolution of the no-confidence motion. The court also found that the petitioners had refused to sign the whip, while the other members of the same party had signed it. The court held that the petitioners were liable to come under the mischief of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993, and were therefore disqualified from being members of the FGP.
Fact of the Case:
Four members of a Gram Panchayat (FGP) issued a notice in Form No. 2 of Tripura Panchayats (Election of Office Bearers) Rules, 1994 (Rules of 1994) addressed to the District Panchayat Officer, Kumarghat, expressing no confidence against the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan of the Panchayat. The District Panchayat Officer received the notice and convened two meetings of the Panchayat to move the no-confidence motion against the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan. On the date of the meeting, a whip issued by the President of the Kailashahar District Congress Committee was read over to the members of the Panchayat, and the members were asked to sign the whip. The three writ petitioners, who were members of the INC party, refused to sign the whip, while the other members of the INC party signed it. The no-confidence motion was passed, and the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan were removed from their respective offices. The three writ petitioners challenged their disqualification from the FGP by filing separate writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the whip was read over in the meeting called by the District Panchayat Officer to move the no-confidence motion against the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan, and that the petitioners were present in the meeting and had signed the resolution of the no-confidence motion. The court also found that the petitioners had refused to sign the whip, while the other members of the same party had signed it. The court held that the petitioners were liable to come under the mischief of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993, and were therefore disqualified from being members of the FGP.
Issues: Whether the whip was read over in the meeting called by the District Panchayat Officer to move the no-confidence motion against the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan, and that the petitioners were present in the meeting and had signed the resolution of the no-confidence motion. Whether the petitioners had refused to sign the whip, while the other members of the same party had signed it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were disqualified from being members of the FGP due to their disobedience of a party whip issued by the authorized person of the INC party. The court found that the whip was read over in the meeting called by the District Panchayat Officer to move the no-confidence motion against the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan, and that the petitioners were present in the meeting and had signed the resolution of the no-confidence motion. The court also found that the petitioners had refused to sign the whip, while the other members of the same party had signed it. The court held that the petitioners were liable to come under the mischief of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993, and were therefore disqualified from being members of the FGP.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all three writ petitions filed by the three writ petitioners with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) in each of the writ petitions.
S.C. Das, J.:-
All the four writ petitions, noted above, were taken up together for hearing and disposal at the admission stage itself on the prayer of learned counsel of both side considering that the matters were urgent, since it involves disqualification of elected members of a particular Gram Panchayat. The facts and the question of law involved in all the cases are same and identical and hence, this common judgment is passed which shall govern all the four cases.
2. Fatikroy Gram Panchayat (for short, FGP), constituted as a 'Gram Panchayat' under the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993, (for short, Act of 1993) consisted of 12 Members. In the year 2009, election of Gram Panchayat was held and in the said election, 12 Members were declared elected, who were set up by different political parties and out of them, four Members were elected sponsored by Communist Party of India (Marxist) (for short, CPI(M)), party and 8 Members were elected sponsored by Indian Nation Congress (for short, INC) party. The name of the elected Members and the political party, which sponsored them indisputably are as follows:--
i) Sri Subhash Dutta - INC
ii) Smt. Suprabha Nag - Do -
iii) Sri Janardhan Banik - Do -
iv) Smt. Priyabala Malakar - Do -
v) Smt. Usha Barua - Do -
vi) Sri Ratan Roy - Do -
vii) Smt. Sikha Das - Do -
viii) Sri Jyotirmoy Chakraborty - Do -
ix) Sri Shaktipada Deb - CPIM x) Md. Habibur Rahaman - Do -
xi) Rasendra Dey - Do -
xii) Sri Jantu Malakar - Do -
3. Smt. Suprabha Nag, Member, was elected as Pradhan and Sri Subhash Datta, Member was elected as Upa Pradhan of the Panchayat by the majority Members belonging to INC party and they were performing their job as such, Pradhan and Upa Pradhan.
4. On 19.03.2012, four members of the Panchayat issued a notice in Form No. 2 of Tripura Panchayats (Election of Office Bearers) Rules, 1994 (for short, Rules of 1994) addressed to the District Panchayat Officer, Kumarghat, expressing no confidence against the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan of the Panchayat on different charges and pursuant to that notice, the District Panchayat Officer conveyed two meetings of the Panchayat on 07.04.2012 at 11.00 a.m. for moving no confidence motion against the Pradhan and at 1.00 p.m. for moving no confidence motion against the Upa Pradhan. The District Panchayat Officer ordered the Panchayat Extension Officer, Kumarghat (Sri Ranatosh Kr. Deb)) to preside over the meeting to be held in the Panchayat office of FGP. On 05.04.2012, the District Panchayat Officer received a Whip issued by one Md. Badaujjaman, President of Kailashahar District Congress Committee, issued on 04.04.2012 directing that every Member of the said Panchayat elected as a candidate of INC to cast their vote against the said no confidence motion. On receipt of that Whip, the District Panchayat Officer issued a letter on 05.04.2012 directing the Panchayat Extension Officer, Sri Ranatosh Kr. Deb to serve the Whip to each and every Member of the Panchayat and the Panchayat Extension Officer received the Whip on the date of moving the no confidence motion i.e. on 07.04.2012 and read over the Whip in the meeting of the Panchayat.
The Panchayat Extension Officer read over the Whip in the presence of all the 12 Members of the Panchayat and obtained signature of the Members on the reverse page of the Whip, but 3 Members namely, Smt. Usha Barua, Sri Ratan Roy and Smt. Sikha Das, i.e. the petitioners, who belonged to INC party refused to put their signature in the Whip. The Panchayat Extension Officer thereafter, put the no confidence motion to vote and it was found that 4 Members belonging to CPI(M) party and 3 Members belonging to INC party namely, Smt. Usha Barua, Sri Ratan Roy and Smt. Sikha Das i.e. the petitioners cast their vote in favour of no confidence motion and the rest 5 Members belonging to INC party cast their vote against the no confidence motion of both the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan and accordingly, the motion was through and the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
