KANIKA CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application, the petitioner has made a challenge to the order dated 6.12.2003 by which No Confidence Notice brought against her has been approved under Section 15(3) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. By the said order of petitioner has been removed from the post of President of No. 33, Panigaon Goan Panchayat.

(2.) The petitioner contested the election for the post of President of No. 33 Panigaon Gaon Panchayat and was duly elected result of which was declared on 3.1.2002. The term was for five year. On 7.10. 2003, six members of the Goan Panchayat including the Vice President submitted an application to the petitioner expressing no confidence against her. Subsequently on 12.10.2003 and 14.10.2003, three members submitted another application to the petitioner informing her that they had, due to some misunderstanding put their signatures in the former application expressing no confidence against her and that they would like to withdraw from such a move. Before the petitioner could take any action on'the notice, on the direction of the President of Pachim Nalbari Anchalik Panchayat, the executive Officer of Anchalik Panchayat by his letter dated 17.10.2003 circulated a notice furnishing the information that meeting for discussing the no confidence motion against the petitioner had been called on 18.10.2003. Accordingly the petitioner along with the said three members attended the venue of the meeting. After waiting for some time, they were informed by the Block Development Officer that the meeting could not be held.

(3.) As per provisions of Section 15(5) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, if it was not possible to hold the meeting for a situation due to non- attendance of the requisite number of members, the No Confidence Motion automatically stood cancel and the No Confidence Motion would be deemed to be lost. It is the case of the petitioner that since the aforesaid meeting could not be held, she was under the genuine believe that the Motion automatically stood cancelled and deemed to have been lost. However, she was surprised to receive the impugned order dated 6.12.2003 issued by the respondent No. 5 i.e. The President, Nalbari Zilla Parishad informing the Executive Officer, Pachim Nalbari Anchalik Panchayat that the procedure taken by the Anchalik Panchayat regarding the No Confidence Notice against the petitioner had been approved under Section 15(3) of the Act and that the petitioner should be removed from the post of President. According to the petitioner she was not given any reasonable opportunity to furnish her explanation to the Anchalik Panchayat. Her further case is that the meeting which was earlier scheduled to be held on 18.10.2003 could not be held and thereafter she was not informed nor was she aware of any other meeting held thereafter. Upon enquiry pursuant to the issuance of the impugned order dated 6.12.2003, the petitioner could come to know that the Secretary of No. 33 Panigaon Goan Panchayat had issued a notice on 25.10.2003 to eight members of the Gaon Panchayat informing them about the meeting to be held on 28.10.2003 for discussion of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner and the said members were requested to be present in the meeting. According to the petitioner, she was not served with the said notice and was not aware of the said meeting.