SAKAYAT HUSSAIN Vs. G.H.A.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Gaonbura of Lokaichar and Meringgipara on 8th March, 2006 and on a complaint filed against the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 directed the Revenue Collector to conduct a spot inquiry and to submit a detailed report. On submission of the report, the respondent No. 2 issued show cause and the petitioner denied all the allegations leveled against him. Consequent to the proceedings the petitioner was removed from the post of Gaonbura and the respondent No. 3 appointed in his place. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the removal and appointment was not as per due process, as such he is before this Court by way of this writ petition, with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 5th February, 2016.

(2.) Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the petitioner has been serving as Gaonbura of Lokaichar and Meringgipara since the year 2005 after being unanimously elected by the villagers and the appointment was accordingly approved by the respondent No. 2 on 8th March, 2006. He submits that without any cogent reason a complaint was lodged against him and pursuant to the complaint, the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council by order dated 22nd July, 2015 directed the Revenue Collectors to conduct a spot inquiry and to submit a detailed report. He submits that the said report exceeded its mandate, in view of the fact that the findings suggested the name of the respondent No. 3 to be appointed as Gaonbura of the village in his place. He further submits that though show cause has been filed against the inquiry report denying all the allegations, the respondent No. 2 had issued the impugned order dated 5th February, 2016 cancelling the petitioner 's appointment and the respondent No. 3 was appointed in his place. He contends that the entire process by which the respondent No. 3 has been appointed is without due process and the same is to be interfered with by this Court. It is noted that Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press his prayer against his removal, but is more aggrieved with the manner in which the respondent No. 3 had been appointed.

(3.) Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that a Gaonbura is an agent of the administration of justice and for revenue collection and is under the control and supervision of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council. He also submits that the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council has adopted the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 along with the rules contained therein and as such the provisions of appointment and removal as contained in the parent Act are applicable with modifications as legislated by the GHADC. He submits that the Gaonbura to continue in office has to have the support of the villagers and enjoy their confidence and it is not the question of length of service which will determine whether a right is accrued to continue in office.