NAGEN BARTHAKUR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful writ petition has yet attempted to salvage his grievance by resorting to the appellate jurisdiction of this court challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 7060/2005.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. P.G. Baruah, learned senior advocate for the appellant, Mr. G.N. Sahewala, learned senior advocate for the respondent No. 3 and Ms. B. Goyal, learned GA, Assam.

(3.) THE main grievance of he appellant that emerges from the pleadings as well as the submissions made by the learned senior counsel in passing the said No Confidence Motion against the appellant resulting him ouster from the office of the President of the Zilla Parishad are that the No Confidence resolution itself indicative of the fact that it was held before the mandatory date prescribed for convening the meeting by the President and the provisions of Section 18(5) is inapplicable in case of considering such resolution in respect of the Zilla Parishad is concerned; that it is violative of the provisions of Section 73 of the Act as it is the President to whom the requisition is to be sent for convening the meeting. The learned Single Judge meticulously considered the stand taken by the appellant/petitioner in the writ petition as well as the stand in the counter affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer, Dibrugarh Zilla Parishad as well as the respondent No. 3 and the learned Single Judge while analyzing Section 73 of the Act considered the ratio decision referred by the Division Bench of this court in Mumtaz Rana Laskar and Ors. v. State of Assam reported in 2006 (1) GLT 46 : (2006) 2 GLR 5., dismissed the writ petition having held that there is no infraction under Section 73 of the Act or in any other related provisions of the Assam Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, in carrying through No Confidence Motion against the appellant/petitioner.