SUDHIR KUMAR DAS AND ORS. Vs. AMITAVA DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of Chairmanship of Karimgani Municipal Board has been before the Court ever since 1980. It is a pity that these grass -root democratic institutions should find themselves in several rounds of litigation. There can be no denial that the question of chairmanship of such institutions being in dispute, the energy of the commissioners is diverted from constructive works to fighting of legal battles. What happened in the present case was that some Commissioners served notice under Section 43(2) of the Assam Municipal Act,' 1956 on the then chairman Sri Biseswar Das on 17 -7 -1980 requesting him to convene a special meeting of the Board to take up the matter of removal of Shri Das from the Chairmanship. A meeting came to be held thereafter on 6 -8 -1980, but it did not contain the aforesaid agenda. What happened in that meeting is a controversial issue between the parties. According to the plaintiff some members who were for removal walked out. The other version is that Shri Das with his 8 (eight) supporters left and the remaining 19 Commissioners passed resolution removing Shri Das from Chairmanship. The Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his power under Section 296 of the aforesaid Act declared the proceedings of the aforesaid meeting as void as the meeting had no agenda relating to removal of the Chairman. This order was subsequently confirmed by the State Government. Some Commissioners however convened a special meeting on 21 -8 -1980 and unanimously adopted a resolution removing Shri Das from the Office of the Chairmanship and authorised the Vice Chairman Shri H. C. Das to discharge the functions of the Chairman till a new Chairman was elected. Shri Biseswar Das filed title suit No. 186/80 for a declaration that the special meeting held on 21 -8 -1980 was illegal, and inoperative. In the suit, a prayer for injunction was also made to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's right in discharging his duties as the Chairman of the Board. The learned Trial Court refused such an injunction, ultimately an appeal was preferred by Shri B. Das, which was dismissed on 10 -6 -1981. In further approach to this court in revision (Civil Revision No. 120/81) the prayer for stay was rejected.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 filed the present suit on 29 -6 -1981. According to him the petitioners who were arrayed as defendants had made themselves liable to be moved from membership of the Board as they had abstained from attending Board's meeting for no less than 15 times. In the suit, therefore, it was prayed that it may be declared that the defendants were not legally entitled to hold any meeting of the Board including the one which was to take place on the date of filing of the plaint, that is 29 -6 -1981. It may be stated that the meeting was to elect a Chairman. But as the plaint along with the petition for injunction was moved at about 2 P.M. and the meeting was to be held on 12.30 P.M., the learned Munsiff directed the defendants to maintain status quo till further orders from the Court. As to what was meant by status quo was made clear by an order passed on 6 -7 -1981 when it was stated "that the defendants are restrained not to disturb the status of the then Chairman of Karimgani Municipal Board headed by Shri Biseshwar Das ante 6 -8 -1980 till disposal of this suit." Feeling aggrieved at this order, an appeal was preferred before the learned Assistant District Judge. It was urged that the matter was hit by Section 11 of the Civil P. C. The learned Assistant District Judge has rejected this plea on the ground that the plaintiff of the present suit was not a party in the earlier proceeding and that no issue had been framed in that case. Being of this view and having taken note of the order of the Deputy Commissioner suspending the resolution adopted in the meeting of 6 -8 -1980 which purportedly meant restoration of status quo before 6 -8 -80, the appeal was dismissed.

(3.) SHRI Choudhuri counters and submits that Explanation VI has no application inasmuch as the right of chairmanship cannot be said to be a right which is common between the present plaintiff and Shri Biseshwar Das, He refers to Jujjuvarapu v. Pappala. and to Chameli v. Kanhaiyalal .