SUPRAKASH SARKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, 10 in number, who are the Ward Commissioners of Dhubri Municipal Board by the present petition are praying for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri (respondent No. 3) to convene the meeting of the Board to fill up the vacancy in the office of the Chairperson for the remaining term in terms of the provisions of assam Municipal Act, 1956 (in short, the Act) and also for restraining the Chairperson of the Board, respondent No. 4, from discharging the duties as Chairperson.

(2.) THE facts of the case is that a notice expressing want of confidence on the respondent No. 4 was given by the petitioners to her, requesting to convene a special meeting of the Board to discuss the no confidence motion brought against her. Since the Chairperson (respondent No. 4) in spite of receipt of such notice did not convene any meeting to discuss such motion, as required under sub-section (2)of section 43 of the Act, a meeting was called by the requisitionists on 20. 1. 2007 in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of section 43 of the Act which meeting was held in the office of the executive Officer of the Board in presence of an executive magistrate. According to the petitioners, in the meeting held on 20. 1. 2007, no confidence motion brought against the respondent No. 4 was discussed and a Resolution was adopted, removing her from the office by expressing no confidence as required u/s 28 (2) of the Act. The further case of the petitioners is that since the Chairperson was removed on adoption of Resolution expressing want of confidence in her in the meeting called on 20. 1. 07, she cannot thereafter function as chairperson and the Vice-Chairman in terms of the provisions in sub-section (2) of section 41 of the Act is required to call a meeting within 45 days from the date of occurrence of such vacancy to elect a new chairman and in the event of failure of the Vice-Chairman to call such meeting, such responsibility is given on the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, to call such meeting for electing the Chairman of the Board, which according to the petitioners, the authority has failed to do and hence the present writ petition.

(3.) THE case of the State respondents as well as the respondent no. 4 is that though the meeting was called by the requisitionists on 20. 1. 07, no business could be transacted on that day as the situation in the meeting became totally chaotic and uncontrollable for which the executive magistrate present in the meeting had to order dispersal of the crowd including the Ward Commissioners from the Municipal Board office premises.