RANGDULAL DEY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Chetri, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the State respondents and Mr. M. Smith, the learned counsel representing the Tinsukia Municipal Board.

(2.) The applicant was elected as the Vice Chairman of Tinsukia Municipal Board and the same was intimated by the Chairperson to the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia District, the respondent No. 2. It was intimated by the Chairperson, the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 25.10.2017. From 30.10.2017 onwards, the responsibilities in respect of Revenue Department, Licence Department, Licence (Vehicle), Public Works Department, No Objection Certificate (Electricity) and Residence Certificate were entrusted to the petitioner and requested to be present in the said meeting and the said entrustment was by the respondent No. 4, the Chairperson. It would be not out of place to mention here that the applicant was elected vide resolution dated 25.10.2017. Against the said resolution, the respondent No. 5 lodged a complaint to the respondent No. 2 and in exercise of Power under Section 296 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 admitted the appeal and suspending the resolution dated 25.10.2017 directed to maintain the status of the Board and the post of Vice Chairman as on 06.11.2016 till the disposal of the said complaint dated 13.11.2017.

(3.) The said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia on 13.11.2017 was challenged in the connected writ petition. Vide order dated 20.11.2017, this court issued notice of motion and as an interim measure, the operation of impugned order dated 13.11.2017 in respect of the suspension of resolution dated 25.10.2017 was stayed until further orders as a result the applicant continued to be the Vice Chairman. Vide order dated 08.11.2018, the respondent No. 4, the Chairperson notified that all the works of tax department were to be done through the Chairperson. Though the applicant was entrusted with the responsibilities of the Revenue Department along with other departments as per the letter dated 30.10.2017 of the Chairperson. Again vide order dated 11.06.2019 the responsibilities in respect of the Licence Department which was entrusted to the applicant was also withdrawn. Being aggrieved by such withdrawal of the responsibilities, the applicant through his representation to the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 sought for passing appropriate order in order to do justice. Finally, vide representation dated 29.11.2019, the applicant along with 5 (five) other Ward Members requested the respondent No. 4 to delegate the responsibility of the said two departments which were withdrawn to the applicant. Having not done so, the applicant has filed this Interlocutory Application seeking for direction thereby allowing the petitioner/applicant to discharge his responsibility in terms of the order dated 30.10.2017 interfering with the order dated 08.11.2018 on the basis of which the responsibility of the Tax Department was withdrawn from the petitioner/applicant.