RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was elected as the President of No. 17 Nutan Ramnagar Gaon Panchayat under Sonai Anchanlik Panchayat of Cachar district, by the present petition has challenged the resolution adopted in the special meeting of the Gaon Panchayat held on 21.02.2011 expressing want of confidence on him and thereby removing from the post of President of the said Gaon Panchayat, basically on the ground of violation of the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (in short, "the Act"). The petitioner was elected as President in the Panchayat election held in the year 2008 and was administered the oath of office on 25.03.2008. All the 10(ten) members of the Gaon Panchayat on 4.2.2011 gave a notice to its Secretary expressing want of confidence on the petitioner and requesting him to convene a special meeting discuss the said motion. According to the petitioner, though Section 15 of the Act requires placing of the said notice before him so as to enable him to convene a special meeting to discuss such motion, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat without placing the same before the petitioner referred the matter to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat on 15.02.2011, who accordingly convened the meeting of the Gaon Panchayat, which was held on 21.02.2011, wherein the resolution expressing want of confidence on him was adopted. The petitioner, therefore, has challenged the said proceeding dated 21.02.2011 on the ground of violation of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act.

(2.) I have heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Phukan, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 7 to 16. The records produced by Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 a d 6, have also been perused.

(3.) The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner referring to the provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 of the Act submits that the requisition for a special meeting to discuss the notice expressing want of confidence signed by not less than 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat must be delivered to the President or the Vice President, as the case may be, of the concerned Gaon Panchayat, who gets 15 days time, from the date of receipt of the notice, to convene such special meeting to discuss such motion and only in the event the President of the Gaon Panchayat fails to convene the meeting within 15 days therefrom the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat can refer the matter to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat within 3 days after expiry of 15 days, for convening the meeting within 7 days from the date of receipt of the information from the Secretary of the concerned Gaon Panchayat, which provisions being mandatory are required to be followed strictly. According to Mr. Chaliha, the said notice expressing want of confidence was never presented to the petitioner and as such he did not get any opportunity to convene the meeting as required under sub-section(1) of Section 15 of the Act, thereby violating the mandatory provision. In the alternative, it has been submitted that even assuming the notice given by all the 10 members of the Gaon Panchayat dated 04.02.2011 was placed before the petitioner by the Secretary on 05.02.2011, as contended by the respondents in the affidavit, the petitioner gets 15 days time from 05.02.2011 to convene the meeting. Mr. Chaliha, therefore, submits that though the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat can refer the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat only after expiry of 15 days, he instead referred the matter to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat on 15.2.2011, i.e. before expiry of 15 days from 5.2.2011, on the basis of which the President of the Anchalik Panchayat has convened the special meeting of the Gaon Panchayat which was held on 21.2.2011 under the Presidentship of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat. The learned Sr. counsel submits that since the Secretary has referred the matter before expiry of 15 days from 5.2.2011, all the subsequent action including the resolution adopted in the meeting dated 21.2.2011 are bad in law being contrary to the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act. The learned Sr. counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Forhana Begum Laskar v. State of Assam & Ors., 2009 3 GauLT 575, a Single Bench decision of this Court in Sita Satnami v. State of Assam & Ors., 2010 3 GauLT 291 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in A.U. Ahmed Mazumdar v. State of Assam & Ors., 2011 3 GauLT 396.