JUGITAWALI PAWE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Konwar, learned Standing Counsel, PNRD, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.l and 3 to 7. Mr. D. K. Sharma, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam has appeared for the respondent No.2. None has appeared for the private respondent Nos.9 to 16.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner herein was elected as the President of Bongalmara Gaon Panchayat in the district of Lakhimpur. On 30/12/2020, a special meeting of the Gaon Panchayat was convened so as to discuss the no confidence motion brought against the writ petitioner. In the said meeting a resolution was adopted expressing 'no confidence" against the petitioner as a result of which she as removed from office. The resolution dtd. 30/12/2020 has been assailed in this writ petition inter-alia on the ground that the respondent No.8, who was a member of the Gaon Panchayat and had voted against the writ petitioner, had given birth to her 3rd child on 18/8/2019 and therefore, by virtue of Sec. 111 (2) (a) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 read with Rule 62 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 she stood automatically disqualified on the date of voting. Notwithstanding the same, her vote was taken into account for passing the resolution against the petitioner.

(3.) By referring to the materials available on record, more particularly the order dtd. 12/1/2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur Mr. Sarmah, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the allegation brought against the respondent No.8 is correct and taking note of the said fact she had already been disqualified from her membership of Ward No.4 of the Gaon Panchayat. If that be so, the impugned resolution stood vitiated on such count alone. Mr. Sarmah therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned resolution and for issuance of a direction to restore his client back in office. The learned senior counsel has, however, submitted that he would have no objection if liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate a fresh proceeding, if so advised, by following the due process of law.