LAWS(GAU)-2010-3-58

AMORESH ROY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On March 16, 2010
Amoresh Roy Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM And ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Election of the members of the District Planning Committee (in short, 'the said Planning Committee'), for the district of Karimganj, for the financial year 2009-2010, from amongst the members of Karimganj Jilla Praishad, is under challenge in this writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The respondent No. 5 herein, namely, Chief Executive Officer, Karimganj Jilla Parishad, sent a letter, on 2.7.2009, to respondent No. 3 herein, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, containing a list of 12 persons as elected members of the said Planning Committee, claiming that the said list had been prepared, in terms of the requirements of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, in a meeting of the said Zila Parishad concerned held on29.6.2009. The said list contained, amongst others, the names of the present writ petitioners as elected members of the said Planning Committee. The total strength of the directly elected members of Karimganj Zila Parishad is 20.

(3.) However, respondent No. 5, namely, Chief Executive Officer, Karimganj Zila Parishad, sent another letter, on 21.10.2009, to the respondent No. 3, whereby another list has forwarded for doing the needful, the list, so forwarded, is claimed to have been prepared in terms of the requirements of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (in short, 'AP Act'). The second list introduced some modifications in the names of the persons, who were to be members of the said Planning Committee. In the list, so forwarded, the names of the present petitioners were replaced by the names of the private respondent therein. By a representation, dated 23.10.2009, addressed to the respondent No. 3, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, some of the present petitioners expressed their grievances at the modification of the said list, which, according to the persons, who had made the representation, was illegal and they requested respondent No. 3 to cancel the said second list.