MASUMA KHATUN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dtd. 25/11/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of WP(C) No.6853/2022 preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner with a direction to re-convene the meeting of the Bajiagaon Gaon Panchayat for considering the no-confidence motion initiated by 10(ten) Members of the said Gaon Panchayat against the appellant/writ petitioner being the elected President of the said Gaon Panchayat.

(2.) It may be mentioned here that the meeting in pursuance of the requisition dtd. 13/5/2022 was held on 28/7/2022 and the resolution of no-confidence was passed. The appellant/writ petitioner challenged the resolution on the ground that the same was undertaken in gross violation of the provisions of Sec. 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") inasmuch as, requisition notice was not served upon the appellant/writ petitioner, i.e. the President, who would then be required to call the meeting within 18(eighteen) days. Since the notice under Sec. 15 of the Act was never served upon the appellant/writ petitioner, the noconfidence motion was assailed.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, while entertaining the writ petition, passed an interim order, whereby the effect and operation of the no-confidence resolution was stayed. While finally deciding the writ petition, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order, whereby the fresh noconfidence meeting was directed to be held in accordance with Sec. 15 of the Act. It is to be noted that the order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned Single Judge, does not clearly indicate that the original resolution dt. 28/7/2022 had been quashed. Be that as it may. By deemed effect of the impugned order, this position can be presumed. The appellant/writ petitioner has questioned the validity of the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge to the extent, a fresh meeting was directed to be convened on the ground that the initial motion having failed on account of non-adherence to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sec. 15 of the Act, the fresh no confidence motion would not be held before expiry of 6(six) months.