KARUN KANTI MALAKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Mr. R.K. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

(2.) IN writ petition, I am called upon to decide the legality of the entire proceeding held on 8.9.2009 convened and presided over by respondent No. 5 rejecting the No Confidence Motion moved against him by the petitioners. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition are virtually not in dispute. The petitioners are the elected members of the Chandipur Gaon Panchayat, Hailakandi District. On 8.9.2009, eight out of ten members of Chandipur Gaon Panchayat submitted a requisition to the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat against the respondent No. 5. The Secretary, it is claimed by the petitioners, in terms of Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act took the approval of the respondent No. 5 and issued notices by fixing the date, time and venue for discussion of the No-Confidence Motion meeting being held on 23.9.2009 at the Gaon Panchayat Office, which is situated adjacent to the house of the respondent No. 5/ President. It is also the case of the petitioners that on the eve of the No Confidence Motion meeting the respondent No. 5 in collaboration with a local ex-minister along with 200/300 followers started to threaten all the elected members. Therefore, the majority of the members became afraid of losing their lives. They are stated to have been informed the District Magistrate through a joint application about the prevailing situation, which was enquired into by a local police personal. The District Magistrate therefore interfered into the matter to avoid any untoward incident and passed an order re-scheduling date of the No Confidence Motion meeting for 7.10.2009. Notices were served as per the scheduled date, time and venue for holding the meeting.

(3.) THE respsondent No. 5 purportedly in compliance with the aforesaid direction of the Division Bench took upon himself the task of convening the No Confidence Motion again on 18.6.2010 at 11-30 A.M. at Chandipur Gaon Panchayat. THE meeting was admittedly convened by him and was also presided over by him in contravention of the provisions of second paragraph of Section 15(1) which clearly mandates that such meeting shall be presided over by the Vice-President if the motion of No Confidence is against the President. A number of contentions has also been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner questioning the legality as well as propriety of the manner in which the No Confidence Motion was held and concluded by the respondent No. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 justifies the impugned resolution and submits that the proceedings in the impugned No Confidence Motion meeting were conducted in accordance with and as authorized by the directions of the Division Bench of this Court. THE learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, however, submits that as the No Confidence Motion against the respondent No. 5 was lost in that meeting, such motion is impermissible for the next 6 months. In my opinion this provision will be come into play if the No Confidence Motion was conducted in the manner prescribed by Section 15 of the Act. As far as the order of the Division Bench authorizing the respondent No. 5 to convene the meeting is concerned, in my opinion the same has to be read in accordance with the provisions of law. In other words, the procedure laid down by the provision of Section 15(1) shall have to be read into in the direction of the Division Bench of this Court so as to make it lawful.