NAMITA MISTRY Vs. THE ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities not to give effect or further effect to the impugned Order No. 980 dated 29th November, 2013 wherein the petitioner was declared as disqualified to be a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Little Andaman with effect from the issuance of the said order. The petitioner's case is that she contested the Panchayat Election from Vivekananda Pur Gram Panchayat Constituency and was elected as Panchayat Samiti member on 21st September, 2010 and thereafter on 15th October, 2010, the petitioner was reelected as Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti Little Andaman from amongst the Panchayat Samiti members. That a complaint was lodged 30th April, 2012 by Smt. Nalayani, Panchayat Samiti member, Hut Bay before Andaman & Nicobar Administration making some allegation against the petitioner for misuse of her official power and position. Specific allegation was that the petitioner allotted five work order to one M/S Trishul Construction Co -operative Society in which her brother is holding the office the President. Details of work orders have been mentioned in the writ petition.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she and her brother Pritosh Mistry were residing in separate mess at separate locality. Her brother is residing separately at V.K.Pur village, Hut Bay and the petitioner after marriage is residing at Rabindra Nagar Little Andaman with her husband. Both of them were maintaining their respective family in separate mess. Further case of the petitioner is that her brother tendered his resignation on 08th August, 2011. Petitioner's caser runs further to the effect that respondent No.2 being the Chief Secretary passed an erroneous decision vide Order No. 980 dated 29th November, 2013 declaring the petitioner as disqualified to be a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Little Andaman on the ground of allocation of five work order to M/S Trishul Construction Co -operative Society in which her brother is President of the said society. The petitioner did never misuse her power and position as Pramuk in the matter of allocation of work orders. The respondents No.2 failed to establish that petitioner had any direct or indirect monitory interest in the allocation of five work orders to M/S Trishul Construction Co -operative Society.

(3.) I have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused materials on records including the impugned Order No. 980 dated 29th November, 2013.