IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J.
A. Kapani & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2020 with W.P. (C) No. 438 of 2020 with W.P. (C) No. 445 of 2020
Decided On : 15-11-2021
ADC Meeting - Manipur Hill Areas District Council Act, 1971 - Section 23(3) - Rule 7 of the District Council Rules - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 7 of the District Council Rules, the notice for moving a resolution for removal of the Chairman/Vice-Chairman, and the subsequent cancellation and reissuance of meeting notices. The court found that the meeting held on 07.08.2020 was null and void due to the State Government's arbitrary actions and violation of the provisions of section 23(3) of the District Council Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the requisition letter and meeting notice for the removal of the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati. The State Government issued and cancelled meeting notices, leading to a disputed meeting on 07.08.2020.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 438 of 2020, finding no evidence of non-compliance with Rule 7 of the District Council Rules. However, W.P. (C) No. 445 of 2020 was allowed, quashing the proceedings of the meeting held on 07.08.2020.
Issues: Disputed delivery of meeting notices, cancellation and reissuance of meeting notices, and the deprivation of the petitioners' right to participate in the meeting.
Ratio Decidendi: The meeting held on 07.08.2020 was null and void due to the State Government's arbitrary actions and violation of the provisions of section 23(3) of the District Council Act.
Final Decision: W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 438 of 2020 were dismissed, and W.P. (C) No. 445 of 2020 was allowed, quashing the proceedings of the meeting held on 07.08.2020.
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior advocate and Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned AG appearing for the State respondents, Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned advocate appearing for the ADC, Senapati and Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior advocate appearing for the private respondents No. 4-17.
[2] In the present writ petitions, the petitioners are assailing the requisition letter dated 10.07.2020 submitted by the 14 members of the Autonomous District Council (ADC), Senapati and meeting notice dated 23.07.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (DC), Senapati for removal of the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the ADC, Senapati as well as for declaring the proceedings of the meeting of the members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati held on 07.08.2020 for removal of the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati as null and void and to quash the same.
As the issues raised in the present 3 writ petitions are common and interrelated, the said 3 writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
[3] The relevant facts of the present cases in a nutshell are that all the writ petitioners were elected as members of the Autonomous District Council of Senapati (herein after referred to as “ADC, Senapati”, for short) in the election held in 2015. Thereafter, the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 438 of 2020 were elected as Chairman and Vice-chairman respectively of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati.
[4] The term of Office of the elected members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati was to expire on 31.05.2020, however, in pursuance of the State cabinet decision taken in exercise of the power conferred under section 13(1) of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971(herein after referred to as the “District Council Act” for short), the Governor of Manipur was pleased to issue an order dated 19.03.2020 extending the term of office of all members of the ADCs, Manipur for a period of 6 months w.e.f. 01.06.2020.
[5] 14 members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati who are the respondents No. 4-17 herein submitted an application dated 10.07.2020 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati requesting for convening a meeting for the purpose of consideration of no confidence motion under section 23 (3) of the District Council Act against incumbent Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati.
[6] On receiving the said application, the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati wrote a letter dated 16.07.2020 to the Commissioner (TA & HILLS), Government of Manipur informing him about the application submitted by the 14 members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati for removal of the incumbent Chairman and Vice-chairman and seeking advice as to what further necessary steps is to be taken up. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati issued a notice dated 23.07.2020 notifying to all council members that a meeting of all members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati will be held on 07.08.2020 at 11.30 am at the District Council Office Hall, Senapati to consider the requisition dated 10.07.2020 for removal of Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati.
Being aggrieved, the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati filed W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 438 of 2020 challenging the aforesaid requisition application dated 10.07.2020 and meeting notice dated 23.07.2020.
[7] After filing of the aforesaid 2 writ petitions, the Additional Chief Secretary (TA & HILLS), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 05.08.2020 cancelling the impugned meeting notice dated 23.07.2020 issued by the DC, Senapati until further order. However, on the next day of the said order, i.e., on 06.08.2020, the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & HILLS), Government of Manipur issued another order cancelling the earlier
Mosira Bibi vs. State of Assam 2006 (4) GauLT 460
Mumtaz Rana Laskar vs. State of Assam 2006 (1) GauLT 46
Standard Chartered Bank vs. Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited and Others (2016) 1 SCC 207
State of Assam vs. Union of India and Others (2010) 10 SCC 408
The arbitrary actions of the State Government and violation of statutory provisions led to the nullification of the meeting held on 07.08.2020.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned notices were issued following the procedures contemplated under Section 207 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994.
Procedural compliance in no confidence motion notices is sufficient; prior satisfaction of the authority is not necessary, affirming adherence to statutory requirements.
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.