M IBEYAIMA DEVI Vs. MUTUM BABITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners who are members of Imphal East Zilla Parishad have questioned the legality and validity of a proceeding held on 1-10-1999 by which no-confidence motion against Adhakshya and Up-Adhakshya was defeated and also the validity of the letter dated 2-11-1999 by which the respondent No. 1 stated that no-confidence motion having been defeated on 1-10-1999, no further requisition by letter dated 25-10-1999 for convening a special meeting for moving no-confidence motion against the Adhakshya and Up-Adhakshya is not permissible under the law.

(2.) In Imphal East Zilla Parishad which was constituted in January, 1997 under the provisions of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) there are 19 elected members. On 8-9-1999 a requisition letter signed by 10 members of Imphal East Zilla Parishad for no-confidence motion was addressed to the Adhyaksha (Annexure-A/2 to the writ petition). On 22-9-1999 a notice was issued for special meeting to be held on 1-10-1999 for consideration of the no-confidence motion. Subsequently, it so happened that on 27-9-1999 nine members out of 10 signatories in the requisition letter dated 8-9-1999 (Annexure-A/2) made an application to the Adhyaksha withdrawing their earlier requisition of no-confidence motion against the Adhyaksha and the Up-Adhyaksha. The copy of the said withdrawal application is at Annexure-A/5. Even on receipt of the letter dated 27-9-1999 (Annexure-A/5), the meeting was not cancelled. It was held on 1-10-1999 and no-confidence motion was defeated. A copy of the proceeding of the no-confidence motion is at Annexure-A/6. Thereafter again on 25-10-1999 12 members including the 10 petitioners submitted another requisition to the Adhyaksha for convening a special meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha stating inter alia, that earlier requisition letter dated 8-9-1999 had already been withdrawn by application dated 27-9-1999. A copy of the letter dated 25-10-1999 is at Annexure-A/7. Even a reminder was sent on 3-11-1999 for calling a special meeting to consider the no-confidence motion against the Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha. Thereafter, finally the respondent No. 1 Adhyaksha issued a letter to Smt. M. Ibeyaima Devi, Member on 2-11-1999 stating that no meeting could be called as it is prohibited by S. 57(4)(b) of the Act.

(3.) Mr. N. Kerani Singh, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the requisition for convening special meeting was made on 8-9-1999 and it was delivered to Adhyaksha and by the mandate of S. 57(4) of the Act a notice for convening meeting should have been issued within a period of 7 days of receipt of the requisition. Thus, the notice issued on 22-9-1999 is not in accordance with the provisions of law, in other words, according to the learned counsel, the said notice cannot be treated as alegal notice under the provisions of the Act. In this regard, Mr.Ashokpotsangbam, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the said requisition notice dated 8-9-1999 was received by the Adhyaksha only on 20-9-1999. In respect of this disputed question of fact, the learned counsel of both sides based their reliance upon some documents. From the said of (sic) the petitioners reliance has been made on Ext. A-2(1) of the additional affidavit which is a copy of the receipt in which the endorsement shown against the names of (1) Adhyaksha, (2) Up-Adhyaksha and (3) Chief Executive Officer discloses that notices were received on 8-9-1999 whereas on behalf of respondent No. 1, Annexure-R/11 discloses that Adhyaksha had been on leave from 7-9-1999 to 4-10-1999 and Annexure-R/12 which is a copy of the receipt register discloses that Adhyaksha had been on leave from 7th September, 1999 to 4th October, 1999 and an endorsement to the effect was made on 8-9-1999 and Annexure-R/14 indicates that Adhyaksha had shortened the leave and joined duty on 20th September, 1999. Annexure-R/15 discloses that Adhyaksha received requisition letter dated 8-9-1999 on 20-9-1999. This vexed question of fact whether requisition notice dated 8-9-1999 was received by Adhyaksha on 8-9-1999 or 20-9-1999, in view of the above documents produced by the rival parties which are not only contrary but also contradictory to each other, I am not inclined to delve into the matter any further in the proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution.