NANDITA DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was elected as a Member of No. 7 Barkhetri Anchalik Panchayat from 62 Loharkatha Adabari Gaon Panchayat. The term of the Panchayat is up to 17.03.2018. The post of President of No. 7 Barkhetri Anchalik Panchayat was reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman Member and the petitioner, being the lone Scheduled Caste Woman Member, was duly elected and appointed as the President of the Anchalik Panchayat in a meeting held on 18.03.2013. The decision that the post of the President of the said Anchalik Panchayat would be kept reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman Member for this term of the Panchayat was taken in a meeting, held on 16.03.2013, in the office chamber of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, and the said decision was put to challenge before this Court by some of the Members by filing a writ petition, numbered and registered as WP(C) 1559/2013. The writ petition was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 22.01.2014 by holding the reservation of the said post of the Anchalik Panchayat, in question, in favour of Scheduled Caste woman category to be valid. Immediately thereafter, a requisition notice, dated 27.01.2014, was issued expressing no confidence against the President. In terms of the said requisition, a meeting was convened on 10.04.2014 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, to discuss the no confidence motion and, in the said meeting, no confidence was expressed against the petitioner by a majority of Members supporting the motion and, consequently, no confidence motion was adopted. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 14.04.2014, under Section 137 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short, 'Panchayat Act'). However, the same being not disposed of, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the resolution of no-confidence adopted on 10.04.2014 and for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to hold and continue in the post of President of No.7 Barkhetri Anchalik Panchayat and for a declaration that Article 243D read with Section 38 of the Panchayat Act, shall supersede Section 43 of Panchayat Act, so far as the same relates to the petitioner.

(2.) No affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

(3.) As agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parties, the case was taken up for consideration on 20.08.2015. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that facts are not disputed and the case poses a question of law and, therefore, it is not essential for them to file their respective counter-affidavits.