JUGITA WALI PAWE v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 17 ORS
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2020-12-17. JUGITA WALI PAWE v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 17 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/7 GAHC010177872020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5278/2020 JUGITA WALI PAWE W/O- SRI JAYANTA PAWE, VILL- NO. 01 BONGALMORA MIRI, P. O. ISLAM GAON, P. S. BIHPURIA, PIN- 787054, DIST. - LAKHIMPUR, PHONE- 8749875545 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 17 ORS REP. BY COMM. AND SECY. , TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM JURIPAR GHY-22 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001 4:THE PRESIDENT LAKHIMPUR ZILLA PARISHAD P. O. LAKHIMPUR DIST. - LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001 5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER LAKHIMPUR ZILLA PARISHAD P. O. LAKHIMPUR Page No. # 2/7 ASSAM P. O. BIHPURIA DIST. - LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 784161 6:THE PRESIDENT ANCHYALIK PONCHYAT KORUNABARI BIHPURIA P. O. BIHPURIA DIST.
- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 784161 7:BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER KORUNABARI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK ANCHYALIK PONCHYAT KORUNABARI BIHPURIA P. O. BIHPURIA DIST. - LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 784161 8:THE VICE PRESIDENT BONGALMORA GAON PONCHYAT P. O. BONGALMORA P. S. BIHPURIA DIST. - LAKHIMPUR (ASSAM) PIN- 787058 9:SECRETARY OF BONGALMORA GAON PONCHYAT P. O. BONGALMORA P. S. BIHPURIA DIST. - LAKHIMPUR (ASSAM) PIN- 787058 10:ANJUMONI DAS W/O- LT. BOHURAM DAS WARD NO- 4 (MEMBER) VILL- BONGALMORA GRAZING P. S. BIHPURIA PIN- 787058 P. O. BONGALMARA ASSAM Page No. # 3/7 11:MD NAZRUL ISLAM WARD MEMBER BONGALMORA GAON PONCHYAT WARD NO- 10 P. S. BIHPURIA PIN- 787058 P. O. BANGALMARA DIST. - LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 12:AMIYA MIRI WARD MEMBER BONGALMORA GAON PONCHYAT WARD NO- 1 P. O. BONGALMARA P. S. BIHPURIA PIN- 787058 DIST. - LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 13:SULTANA BEGUM WARD MEMBER BONGALMORA GAON PANCHYAT WARD NO- 9 P. O. BONGALMARA P. S. BIHPURIA PIN- 787058 DIST.
- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 14:SARESWATI SAIKIA W/O- SRI MAKHON SAIKIA MEMBER BONGALMORA GAON PANCHAYAT VILL- BONGALMORA THENGAL DIST. - LAKHIMPUR P. O. BIHPURIA P. S. BIHPURIA PIN- 787058 DIST. - LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 15:RITUMONI SAIKIA W/O- PRODIP SAIKIA VILL- HOSAIPUKHURI P. O. BIHPURIA P. S. BIHPURIA Page No. # 4/7 PIN- 787058 ASSAM 16:ANIL BORA C/O- LT. BHUBON BORA VILL- KHORA CHAPORI DIST. - LAKHIMPUR P. O. BIHPURIA P. S. BIHPURIA PIN- 787058 17:RANJIT BORUAH C/O- SRI BOLU BORUAH VILL- 2ND BONGALMORA (MIRI BORALIGURI) DIST. - LAKHIMPUR P. O. BIHPURIA P. S. BIHPURIA PIN- 787058 18:KRISNA DEORI C/O- LT. MATAI DEORI VILL- SANDAH KHOWE DIST. - LAKHIMPUR P. O. BIHPURIA P. S. BIHPURIA PIN- 78705 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM 17. 12. 2020 Heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr.
M Nath, learned Standing Counsel, PNRD Department, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7 and 9 as well as Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for respondent No. 3. Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel has appeared in this case on behalf of the Page No. # 5/7 respondent Nos. 8 and 10 to 18 on the strength of a caveat. The resolution adopted in the meeting of Bongalmora Gaon Panchayat held on 13. 11. 2020 removing the petitioner from the post of President of the Gaon Panchayat, has been assailed in the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had neither brought the requisition dated 8. 10. 2020 to the notice of the petitioner seeking her approval to convene the special meeting nor has proper procedure prescribed under Section 15 (1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 been followed in this case. On such grounds, submits Mr. Choudhury, the resolution dated 13. 11.
2020 stands vitiated and therefore, is liable to be set aside by this Court. Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents/requisitionists had fairly submitted on the last date admitting the fact that there were some serious procedural irregularities in convening the meeting to discuss the No Confidence Motion having a vitiating effect on the resolution and therefore, he would have no objection if the impugned resolution is set aside by fixing a date for holding the meeting to discuss the No Confidence Motion. In order to verify the contentions advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, this Court had directed the learned departmental counsel to obtain written instruction. Accordingly, Mr. M Nath, learned Standing Counsel, PNRD Department, has obtained instructions from the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, i. e. respondent No. 9 and has produced the same for perusal by this Court. The written instruction dated 15. 12.
2020 goes to show that the Vice-President and the members of the aforesaid Gaon Panchayat had submitted a requisition on 8. 10. 2020 with a request to convene a special meeting so as to discuss No Confidence Motion brought against the President of the Gaon Panchayat, i. e. the writ petitioner. According to the respondent No. 9, the requisition was put up before the petitioner on 18. 10. 2020 itself but, she had refused to accept the same or to grant approval for holding the meeting. Situated thus, the respondent No. 9 had forwarded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, i. e. the respondent No. 3. It further appears from the documents produced by the learned departmental counsel that on 14. 10. 2020, the respondent No. 3 had directed the respondent No. 9 to convene a meeting so as to discuss the No Confidence Motion brought against the petitioner. Accordingly, on 9. 11. 2020, notices were Page No. # 6/7 issued by the respondent No.
9 notifying the convention of the special meeting on 13. 11. 2020 wherein the impugned resolution was adopted. The documents produced by the learned departmental counsel, however, establishes beyond doubt that the respondent No. 9 had never forwarded the matter to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat as per mandate of Section 15(1) of the Panchayat Act, 1994. That apart, the notice dated 09. 11. 2020 was also not issued to the petitioner, as a result of which, she was not present in the meeting. It is settled law that the procedure prescribed in Section 15(1) of the Act, 1994 requiring the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to refer the matter to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat within three days if the President of the Gaon Panchayat fails to grant approval for convening a special meeting to discuss No Confidence Motion within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice was mandatory in nature.
It is only when the Anchalik Panchayat fails to act in the matter within the specified period of 7 days as mentioned in the said provision that the matter can be referred to the Deputy Commissioner to take appropriate action. In this case, as noticed above, this matter was not referred to the Anchalik Panchayat President. As such, it is apparent that there has been clear violation of the mandate of Section 15(1) of the Act of 1994. Moreover, the respondent No. 9 had also not served notice of the meeting upon the petitioner which she was entitled to under the law. For the above reasons, I am of the view that proceeding of the meeting held on 13. 11. 2020 and the resolution adopted therein stood vitiated on the ground of breach of mandatory provision of the Act of 1994 and also for violation of principles of natural justice. As such, the impugned resolution dated 13. 11. 2020 is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the petitioner is restored in the office of the President of the Bongalmora Gaon Panchayat with immediate effect. As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, since there is already a requisition submitted by the Vice-President and the members of the Gaon Panchayat to convene a special meeting to discuss the proposal of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner, a meeting shall now be convened by the respondent No. 9 within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today. In doing so, the approval of the writ petitioner on that account shall be deemed Page No. # 7/7 to have already been obtained. The respondent No. 9 shall only notify the date, time and venue of the meeting to all the members including the President and Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat by issuing formal notice and thereafter proceed with the matter. With the above observation, this writ petition stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Gauhati High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.