SURYA PHUKAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge of these two writ petitions being similar, the same are disposed of by this common judgment and order. The petitioners herein have put to challenge an order by which, on the expiry of the term of the Municipal Board, it is provided that the charge should be handed over to the Deputy Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil). The further prayer made in these two writ petitions is to allow the petitioners to continue in their positions of their respective Municipal Boards till fresh election for the same is held.

(2.) For better appreciation of the issue at hand, bereft of details, the minimum facts can be culled down as follows.

(3.) Wp(C) No.2135/2020 is filed by the erstwhile Chairman and three numbers of Ward Commissioners of the Hailakandi Municipal Board (for short HMB) whereas, WP(C) No.2151/2020 is filed by the erstwhile Chairman of the North Lakhimpur Municipal Board (for short LMB). The petitioners were elected in their respective posts and the tenure prescribed under Section 26(1) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (for short Act) being five years, the said period was coming to an end. At that time, instead of issuing notification for holding a fresh election, an order dated 01.04.2020 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi observing that on completion of the five years term, Shri Tridib Roy, Circle Officer, Hailakandi Revenue Circle and Executive Officer, HMB was entrusted to take over the Board w.e.f. 03.04.2020. The aforesaid communication was issued pursuant to a WT Message dated 31.03.2020 issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of Assam to the Deputy Commissioners and the Sub-Divisional Officers (Civil). While the petitioners in WP(C) No.2135/2020 have annexed the order of appointing the Executive Officer to run the Municipal Board in question, no such order has been annexed so far as WP(C) No.2151/2020 is concerned. In fact in WP(C) No.2151/2020, no order of actual handing over of charge to the Executive Officer has ever been annexed. So far as LMB is concerned, such order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner. It is the case of the petitioners that the elections not being able to be held within the prescription of the statute, regarding tenure for reasons not attributable to the petitioners, in lieu of the present action of running the Municipal Board by the Executive Officer/Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners, who were the elected representatives be allowed to continue in the office till such elections are held. It is contended that such action would be inconsonance with the constitutional mandate of having a federal structure of governance wherein decentralization of powers are to be carried out and administration should be run from the grass root level.