LUTHFA BEGUM LASKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. RKD Choudhury, learned Addl. Senior Govt. advocate for respondent no.2, Mr. M. Nath, learned standing counsel for the P&RD Department for respondent nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. PN Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 9 to 17. None appears on call for respondent nos. 3, 7 and 8.

(2.) Bereft of details, it would be sufficient for the purpose of this order to narrate the brief facts of the case of the appellants in W.A. 200/2020. The appellant was the elected President of 9 No. Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat. The respondent nos. 9 to 17, who are the members of the said Gaon Panchayat had moved a motion of no confidence against the appellant. By a resolution dated 21.08.2020 for removal of the appellant as President of the said Gaon Panchayat was taken in the meeting of the said Gaon Panchayat. The aggrieved appellant moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3411/2020 to challenge the said resolution, amongst others, on the ground that it is vitiated by irregularities and was in violation of the requirements of section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 by projecting that under section 15(i) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 the President was entitled to at least 15 (fifteen) days time to give approval for a meeting of no confidence against her, but even before expiry of the said period, the Secretary of the 9 No. Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat had moved the President of Sonai Anchalik Panchayat under second paragraph of section 15(i) of the said 1994 Act. As per order dated 08.09.2020, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 9 to 17 had made a statement that there is a possibility that the procedural requirement of section 15(i) may not have been followed and upon instructions, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 9 to 17 had prayer to allow him to withdraw the resolution dated 21.08.2020 by which the appellant had been removed from the post of 9 No. Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat, which having not been objected to, was allowed by this Court by the impugned order dated 08.09.2020, declaring the resolution dated 21.08.2020 to be null and void. It was also provided that as the resolution has not been defeated, but it is a case where it has not been pressed upon by the respondents, resulting in its withdrawal, view was expressed by the learned Judge of this Court that the respondent nos. 9 to 17 are entitled to proceed in any manner as they may be advised under the law.

(3.) The appellant had filed an application for review of the order dated 08.09.2020 and the learned Single Judge by order dated 15.10.2020 passed in Review Pet No. 91/2020 "4. when there is a declaration that the resultant resolution passed in such motion is null and void, it has to be understood that the motion was lost. When the motion was lost, the consequence of the other relevant provisions of law including that there cannot be a further no confidence motion again within a period of 6 (six) months would also be applicable."