SMT. NANDINI CHAKMA Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the Tripura State Election Commissioner who is responsible for holding election of the Village Committee under Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council [the TTADC in short] on reference and Yes No ? Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the TTAADC and its officers.

(2.) The petitioner has unfolded a case that she is the elected member of Seat No.4 under Constituency No.III of Dakshin Dhanicherra Village Committee. Dakshin Dhanicherra Village Committee consists of 7(seven) constituencies. During the last election, Indian National Congress [the INC in short] own 4(four) seats and formed the majority. The petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the said village committee. One 'No Confidence Motion' was moved and when the no confidence motion was put in motion for removal of the petitioner as the Chairman, according to the petitioner, for cross voting by one of the elected members from the INC, namely Sri Hriday Chakma, the said no confidence motion was passed and the petitioner was removed from the post of Chairman of the said village committee. Sri Hriday Chakma was elected as the member of the village committee. He was proceeded for disqualification as per the provisions of Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (Establishment of Village Committee) Act, 1994 as he violated Sec. 7(1)(b) of the said act by disobeying the whip given to him on 14.12016. Finally, said Hriday Chakma was disqualified and his membership had ceased on cancellation w.e.f. 17.01.2017 by virtue of the order [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] issued by the Zonal Development Officer, North Zone, Machmara, Unakoti, Tripura. As consequence thereof, the Seat No.5 of Constituency No.III has fallen vacant. Hence, the respondents were legally bound to hold the election in accordance with Rule 75(Part-V) of TTADC Village Committee (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1996. But the grievance of the petitioner is that they are dillydallying the matter and allowing the village committee function most illegally.

(3.) The respondents by filing the reply did not dispute the basic facts as laid by the petitioner but the respondent No.1 in particular, by filing an affidavit has stated that the respondents No.2 and 3 have informed about the vacancy and requirement of holding of bye election. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 has taken all requisite actions to hold the bye election at an early date. The respondent No.1 in his reply filed on 208.2017 has stated as under: