MORIOM BEGUM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUTTING to challenge the notice, dated 18. 05. 2009, issued by the President Guma Fulbari Anchalik Panchayat, informing, amongst others, the Petitioner, as president of No. 31 Pazar Bhanga Gaon Panchayat, that a special meeting of the said Gaon Panchayat has been convened, in the office of Guma Fulbari Anchalik Panchayat, on 26. 05. 2009, at 11 p. m. , on the basis of a requisition submitted by as many as seven members of the said Gaon Panchayat, expressing want of confidence, in the petitioner, as the President of the said Gaon Panchayat, the petitioner, with the help of this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contends that the notice, dated 18. 05. 2009, aforementioned, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, mandates, inter alia, that a notice, expressing want of confidence in a President of a Gaon Panchayat, shall, at first, be given to the President against whom want of confidence is expressed, but no such notice was given by the requisitionists to the petitioner and without complying with this mandatory requirement, no special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence, which the requisitionists had sought to get convened, was permissible to be convened by the jurisdictional Anchalik Panchayat.

(2.) THE respondents herein, who had requisitioned the meeting, have resisted the writ petition by getting themselves impleaded in this writ petition and also by filing their affidavit-in-opposition. The sum and substance of the case of requisitionist, as discernible from the averments, made by them in their affidavit, read thus : for various breach of conduct, on the part of the present petitioner, as many as seven members of the said Gaon Panchayat gave a letter, dated 27. 04. 2009, requesting the petitioner, as President of the said Gaon Panchayat, to convene a special meeting on the ground that the said members had lost their confidence in the petitioner as President of the said Gaon Panchayat. This letter was to be handed over to the Secretary as well as the President of the said Gaon Panchayat (i. e. , the writ petitioner. However, while the Secretary received the said letter and rendered acknowledgement of the receipt thereof, the petitioner, as President, declined to receive the letter. A copy of the said letter could, however, be served on the petitioner by the Secretary on 02. 05. 2009 and the petitioner acknowledged receipt thereof, on 02. 05. 2009, by putting her initial on the photocopy of the letter requisitioning the special meeting. Despite the fact that the petitioner did acknowledge receipt of the letter, dated 02. 05. 2009, aforementioned, she did not arrange the special meeting and it was in such circumstances that the jurisdictional Anchalik Panchayat issued the impugned notice, dated 18. 05. 2009, convening the special meeting, on 26. 05. 2009, on the subject of no confidence expressed by the majority of members of the said Gaon Panchayat in their President. After having received the notice, dated 27. 04. 2009, aforementioned, the petitioner, as President of the said Gram Panchayat, avoided convening the special meeting, the President of the said Anchalik Panchayat issued the impugned notice, dated 18. 05. 2009, convening the special meeting on 26. 05. 2009. However, responding to the notice, dated 18. 05. 2009, which had been issued by the said Anchalik Panchayat, the petitioner applied, on 22. 05. 2009, to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat seeking adjournment of the said meeting on the ground of her ill-health and, in support of her illness, she also submitted a medical report. These facts, according to the requisitionists, are ample proof of the fact that the petitioner had been avoiding receipt of the letter, dated 27. 4. 2009, and also the calling of the special meeting in terms of the requisition given to her and it was in such circumstances that Anchalik Panchayat had to call for the special meeting. In support of their averments, the requisitionists have also brought on record a copy of the letter, dated 27. 04. 2009, which had been given by them to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. V. L. Singh, learned Government Advocate, for the State respondent. I have also heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the requisitionists, who have got themselves impleaded as respondent Nos. 5 to 11.