HABIBUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.8.05 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 8284 of 2004, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 6 herein, setting aside the proceeding of the meeting of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat, held on 25.10.04, adopting no confidence motion against him and also quashing the communication dated 28.10.04 issued by the Senior Block development Officer, Khagarijan Development Block directing the respondent No. 6 to hand over the charge of the office of the President, on the ground of violation of the provisions of Section 15(1) and 15(2) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short 1994 Act).

(2.) The brief fact relevant for the punpose of the present appeal is that the appellant herein along with seven members of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat issued a notice of no confidence against the respondent No. 6/writ petitioner, who was the President of the said Gaon Panchayat, under Section 15 of the 1994 Act, with inti - mation to the Deputy Commissioner of Nagaon District. On 10.9.04 the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat put up a note before the respondent No. 6/ writ petitioner seeking his approval to convene a meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion as required under Section 15(1)of the 1994 Act, enclosing therewith a copy of the requisition submitted by eight members of the Gaon Panchayat, suggesting 18.9.04 as the date for holding such meeting. As no approval was accorded by the respondent No. 6, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat vide communication dated 27.9.04 referred the matter to Khagarijan Anchalik Panchayat to take necessary action as the respondent No, 6/ writ petitioner had not taken the required steps to convene the meeting as requested. The Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat thereafter vide communication dated 30.9.04 informed the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat that the meeting had been convened on 11.10.04 to discuss the issue of no confidence brought against there spondent No.6, which was communicated to the respondent No. 6 by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat vide communication dated 4.10.04. On 11.10.04 the meeting of the Gaon Panchayat could not be held for want of quorum and, therefore, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat vide communication dated 14.10.04 intimated all concerned about the next date fixed for the said meeting as 25.10.04. Accordingly the said specially convened meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion brought against the respondent No. 6/writ petitioner was held on 25.10.04, wherein the resolution was adopted expressing want of confidence in respondent No. 6 writ petitioner by a majority of 2/3rd of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat. Since the charge of the Gaon Panchayat was not handed over by the respondent No. 6/writ petitioner in spite of his removal from the office of the President by adopting the no confidence motion, the Senior Block Development Officer, Khagarijan Development Block by communication dated 28.10.04 directed him to hand over the charge to the Vice President of the said Gaon Panchayat.

(3.) The respondent No. 6/writ petitioner has challenged the resolution adopted in the meeting dated 25.10.04 expressing no confidence on him on two grounds, namely, (i) violation of the provision of Section 15(1) of 1994 Act, as the time limit fixed under the said provisions of the Act for the purpose holding the specially convened meeting for consideration of no confidence motion has not been adhered to, though the said provision is mandatory in nature, (ii) violation of the provision of Section 15(2) of 1994 Act, as the requisition for holding the special meeting under sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act has not been delivered to him, as required under the said provision. The learned single Judge set aside the proceeding of the meeting dated 25.10.04 adopting the resolution expressing want of confidence in respondent No. 6/writ petitioner, on both the grounds, i.e. violation of the mandatory provision contained in sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the 1994 Act as well as on the ground that the requisition for a special meeting under Sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act was not delivered to him as required under sub-Section (2) of Section 15 of the said Act. Hence the present appeal by one of the requisitionist, who was arraigned as respondent No. 10 in the writ petition.