IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, S.G. Chattopadhyay, JJ.
Ranjit Sinha and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tripura and Ors - Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 1351, 1352 and 1353 of 2019
Decided On : 01-12-2020
Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993 - Section 17(50) (1) (3) 16 ,20 and 217 - Rule-27 - Petitioner was elected as a member of Fultali Gram Panchayat from Seat as a candidate set up by BJP in Panchayat General Election of which was held on Similarly, petitioner of W.P.(C) was elected from seat and petitioner of W.P.(C) was elected from seat numberin said Panchayat also as BJP candidates. - Returning Officer of said election duly declared them to have been elected and issued Certificate of Election in Form Number 25 in favour of candidates - Whether any member of a Gram Panchayat has incurred disqualification in terms of Section 16 of Act, question shall be decided by Block Development Officer having jurisdiction over such Gram Panchayat whose decision shall be final - Held, law on issue stands crystallised to effect that an elected member can be removed in exceptional circumstances giving strict adherence to statutory provisions and holding enquiry, meeting requirement of principles of natural justice and giving an incumbent an opportunity to defend himself, for reason that removal of an elected person casts stigma upon him and takes away his valuable statutory right - Not only elected office-bearer but his constituency / electoral college is also deprived of representation by person of their choice - Keeping in view said observations of Apex Court and discussions made above, disqualification order and consequential declaration issued by BDO disqualifying petitioners from membership of Fultali Gram Panchayat for violation of party whip stand quashed and set aside. - Writ petitions allowed
JUDGMENT :
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
1. These three writ petitions being factually and legally similar have been heard together and they would be disposed of by this common judgment.
2. For convenience, the basic facts and controversy brought before this court may be noted from W.P.(C) No. 1351 of 2019 which are as under:
3. The said petitioner was elected as a member of Fultali Gram Panchayat from Seat number 06 as a candidate set up by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP herein after) in the Panchayat General Election of 2019 which was held on 27.07.2019. Similarly, petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 1352 of 2019 was elected from seat number 07 and petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 1353 of 2019 was elected from seat number 04 in the said Panchayat also as BJP candidates. The Returning Officer of the said election duly declared them to have been elected and issued Certificate of Election dated 31.07.2019 in Form Number 25 in favour of the candidates. Said Fultali Gram Panchayat has 09(nine) elected members in all and 07(seven) among them were sponsored by BJP and 02(two) were sponsored by Indian National Congress (INC in short). The first meeting after the said election was convened on 16.08.2019 for administering Oath of Affirmation to the elected candidates followed by election of Pradhan and Upa Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat. The Inspector of Schools of the Education Inspectorate, Chandipur R.D. Block, was specified by the State Government in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 217 of the Act as the authority to administer Oath to the elected members of the Panchayat and he was also nominated by the District Panchayat Officer to preside over the first meeting of the newly elected panchayat.
4. In the minutes of the proceedings of the said meeting dated 16.08.2019, Annexure-R/2 of the respondents, it has been recorded that after administering oath to the elected members, the Presiding Officer read out the whip of the party to the elected members of the party including the petitioners for casting their votes in favour of Smt. Abha Sharma for the post of Pradhan and Shri Atish Malakar for the post of Upa Pradhan and he also informed the members that violation of the party whip was likely to disqualify them from the membership of the Gram Panchayat. The said Presiding Officer of the meeting after reading out the party whip also procured signatures of the members whereby the members admitted to have heard and understood the party whip, Annexure-R/3 of the respondents. During the election process, Atish Malakar, a BJP member proposed the name of Smt. Abha Sharma for the post of Pradhan in accordance with the party whip. But, Shri Mridul Sinha, petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 1353 proposed the name of Smt. Pramila Sinha, petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 1352 for the post of Pradhan in violation of the party whip and all the 03 petitioners namely Shri Ranjit Sinha, Smt. Pramila Sinha and Shri Mridul Sinha cast their votes by raising their hands in favour of Smt. Pramila Sinha for the post of Pradhan violating the whip of the party. As a result, Smt. Abha Sharma, party nominated candidate, got only 04 votes of elected BJP members whereas Smt. Pramila Sinha of B
Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 2524
Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector
Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (1982) 1 SCC 691: AIR 1982 SC 983
Mohan Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate
Ram Beti v. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari (1998) 1 SCC 680: AIR 1998 SC 1222
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.