ABDUL LATIFF Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 276/2010 and Mr. S. Jayanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 280/2010. Also heard Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Government respondents and Md. Jalaluddin, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 4 to 13 in WP (C) No. 276/2010 and private Respondent No. 7 in WP (C) No. 280/2010.

(2.) AS common question of facts and law are involved, the two writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposal by this common judgment and order.

(3.) THE above extracted provisions of Section 57(4)(a) of the Act would clearly demonstrate that if a requisition signed by not less than one-third of the total memberships of the Zilla Parishad is submitted to the Adhyaksha for convening a special meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion either against the Adhyaksha or the Up-Adhyaksha, the Adhyaksha is statutorily obligated to convene the special meeting within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of the requisition. If the Adhyaksha fails to convene the special meeting within the stipulated time, the requisitionists of the special meeting may request the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose and the Deputy Commissioner, within 5 (five) days from the date of receipt of the request, shall direct the Chief Executive Officer to convene the special meeting within 7 (seven) days. THE aforesaid provision has also put an embargo on the withdrawal of no-confidence motion against the Adhyaksha or the Up-Adhyaksha. In other words, once a no-confidence motion is brought either against the Adhyaksha or the Up-Adhyaksha, the second proviso to Section 57(4)(b) prohibits withdrawal of the same. Thus, the plain language of Section 57(4) leaves no doubt that there is no scope for any mis-interpretation of the same nor is there any scope for any mischief.