SUBHASH GOPE Vs. UTPAL NANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition in Civil Rule No. 2825 of 1992. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. We find it unnecessary to issue notice to the other side.

(2.) We are concerned in this case about the Constitution of Municipal Board, Dhekiajuli. Under S. 11(3) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (for short, the Act), ten Commissioners were elected by the electors and two, namely, appellants, were nominated by the State Government. These twelve Commissioners were to meet and elect the Chairman, and Vice-Chairman of the Board. At that stage one of the elected Commissioners filed the writ petition challenging the nomination of the appellants as Commissioners. The first appellant was nominated on the ground that he is a member of other socially and educationally Backward Classes (OBC), the second appellant was nominated as a member belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC). The writ petitioner contended that the first appellant did not belong to OBC and, in any event, his nomination would not be lawful since three of the ten elected Commissioners belong to OBE. Nomination of second appellant was challenged on the ground that he does not belong to Scheduled Castes and he belongs to Barman community, which is recognised as Scheduled Caste only in Cachar. The first appellant filed counter-affidavit on behalf of himself and second appellant. On behalf of the State Government, Additional Secretary in the Department concerned has sworn the counter-affidavit.

(3.) The learned single Judge has held that the legislative purpose underlying S. 11(3) of the Act is to ensure that Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBCs are given representation in the Board and, therefore, all these communities are to be represented in the Board and the Government has no power to nominate a member of a category already represented in the Board. On this ground the nomination of the first appellant as representing OBC, which is already represented by three elected Commissioners, has been quashed. The learned single Judge held that the second appellant is not shown to belong to Scheduled Castes disregarding the certificate issued by the President, Assam Scheduled Castes Development Council. The reasoning and conclusions of the learned single Judge are now challenged.