M. B. THATAL Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of the like nature to quash the impugned Notification No.20/RM&DD/P dated 22- 03-2011, Annexure P-10, by which the Petitioners have been removed from their Offices as Sabhapati and Sachiva respectively of 13-Gyalshing Omchung Gram Panchayat, West District, under sub-Section (1) of Section 113 of the Sikkim Panchayat Act, 1993, (in short the "Act") and Notice issued vide Memo No.345/ADC/(D)/W dated 06-04-2011, Annexure P-12 (collectively), calling for election to fill the resultant vacancies of the Sabhapati and the Sachiva, 13-Gyalshing Omchung Gram Panchayat on 20-04-2011 under Sections 28 and 33 of the Act. The Petitioners are Members of 13- Gyalshing Omchung Gram Panchayat and held the posts of Sabhapati and Sachiva respectively having been elected in the Panchayat Election held in the year 2007.

(2.) (a). It is stated that on 01-10-2008, the Petitioners were approached by one Mr. J. B. Sikdel of Kyongsa, Gyalshing, West Sikkim, aggrieved by the District Collector, the Respondent No.2, having issued to him a Notice under sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of the Sikkim Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants and Rent Recovery) Act, 1980, vide Memo No.787/DC(W) dated 01-10-2008, which is Annexure P-1 to the Writ Petition, directing removal or disposal of his building by public auction and requesting the Petitioners to intervene in the matter as elected representatives of the area.

(3.) IT is stated that the Petitioners were provided sufficient opportunities to defend themselves and that necessary show cause notices were issued to the Petitioners by the Respondents and, upon considerations of their replies the concerned authorities were not satisfied and concluded that the Petitioners' action were inconsistent and in clear abuse of the powers vested in them and that they had over- stepped their authority. It was, therefore, decided that the Petitioners be removed from their Offices under Section 113 of the Act. It is stated that the Respondents had complied with all the procedure established under the Act in removing the Petitioners from their respective posts.