ORDER

16-08-2022 This is yet another writ petition wherein the interpretation of Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (Act) has come up for consideration. The principal issue which has arisen for determination is with regard to the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 15 with regard to the fact of not being able to hold a no confidence motion.

2. Before going to the issue involved, the brief facts of the case may be noted as follows.

3. The petitioner is the elected President of the Mikirgaon Gaon Panchayat in the district of Morigaon, the elections of which were held in the year 2018. The tenure of a Gaon Panchayat is 5 years.

4. Section 15 of the Act of 1994 lays down the procedure for holding no confidence motion against the President and Vice President of a Gaon Panchayat. In terms of the said provision, on 15.02.2022, 8 numbers of members including the Vice President had submitted a requisition on 15.02.2022 expressing want of confidence on the petitioner. It is the projected case of the petitioner that on 02.03.2022, the said requisition letter was, however, withdrawn/rescinded by the concerned members. The petitioner contends that a letter dated 01.06.2022 was issued by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat informing that another requisition dated 30.05.2022 was brought by which the confidence upon the petitioner was said to be lost and therefore, the petitioner was requested to fix a date. The petitioner submits that the said letter dated 30.05.2022 was not served upon him and in spite of the same, the meeting was held in a very “secretive” manner. The writ petition has accordingly been filed with a prayer to set aside and quash the impugned requisition letters dated 15.02.2022 and 30.05.2022. A further prayer has also been made to allow the petitioner to continue as the President of the Gaon Panchayat on the strength of being democratically elected.

5. I have heard Shri R. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri N. K. Dev Nath, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1, Shri B. Deori, learned State Counsel, Assam for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Shri F. K. R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 11. The other respondents chose not to contest the writ petition.

6. Shri R. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of removing her from the post of President is ex facie illegal and violative of the second proviso to Section 15 (1). The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid provision of law puts an embargo that when a no-confidence motion is lost, no such motion shall be allowed in the next 6 (six) months. By contending that the motion which was initiated vide the requisition letter dated 15.02.2022 was withdrawn, the consequence has been argued that the no-confidence motion is deemed to be lost and therefore, no fresh motion is permissible within the next stipulated 6 (six) months.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid provision of law being a mandatory one, no deviation is permissible and therefore, the impugned action of passing a no-confidence motion within 6 (six) months from the loss of the earlier motion would make the entire action null and void.

8. Countering the aforesaid submission, Shri N. K. Dev Nath, the learned Standing Counsel, P&RD submits that no-confidence motion is something which is provided by the statute itself. Therefore, what is to be seen is whether substantial justice is carried out and in the present case, the learned Standing Counsel submits that a majority of the members of the said Gaon Panchayat are even before this Court opposing the writ petition.

9. Shri F. K. R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 11 submits that the projection made by the petitioner is not correct. By referring to the second proviso to Section 15 (1), it is submitted that only in case when the no- confidence motion is lost, no such motion shall be allowed in the next 6 (six)