Salim Uddin Laskar v. The State of Assam and 15 Ors

ORDER

03.05.2023 [Sandeep Mehta, CJ] Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Page No.# 5/8 The instant intra-court writ appeal is directed against the order dated 09.03.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) 7986/2022 preferred by the appellant against the motion of no-confidence 29.11.2022 drawn against the appellant/writ petitioner pursuant to a meeting convened in the office of the Lala Anchalik Panchayat, in the district of Hailakandi, Assam. It may be stated that the earlier resolution of no-confidence dated 27.09.2022 drawn against the appellant/writ petitioner was interfered with by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.11.2022, passed in WP(C) 6799/2022, directing that the Secretary cum Executive Officer of the Lala Anchalik Panchayat shall henceforth proceed with the matter in accordance with law and bring the process to its logical end. Pursuant to the said direction, notice to convene a special meeting to discuss the motion of no-confidence was again issued on 16.11.2022 and the meeting was convened on 29.11.2022, on which date a resolution of no-confidence was passed against the appellant/writ petitioner. The said resolution of no-confidence has been sustained by the learned Single Judge, as indicated above, dismissing WP(C) 7986/2022 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner vide order dated 29.11.2022 assailed in this appeal. Mr. M. H. Laskar and Mr. H. I. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the appellant/writ petitioner have vehemently and fervently contended that the fresh meeting to discuss the motion of no-confidence was not convened in accordance with the mandate of Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1994" for short) inasmuch as the notice dated 16.11.2022 was issued by the Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat and, as such, the no-confidence motion suffers from breach of the mandatory requirement of Section 15(1) of the Act of 1994 and is liable to be declared invalid. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents have drawn the Court's attention to the proceedings undertaken in the meeting for discussing the motion convened at the Anchalik Panchayat on 29.11.2022 (Annexure at page 88 of the Memo. of Appeal) pursuant to the notice dated 16.11.2022 issued by the Secretary of the Lala Anchalik Panchayat. The meeting was convened on 29.11.2022 in the office of the Lala Page No.# 6/8 Anchalik Panchayat wherein the President of the Lala Anchalik Panchayat was present. In the meeting, 9 (nine) votes were cast in favour of the no-confidence motion, whereas no vote was cast against the same. He urged that as the President of the Lala Anchalik Panchayat was a part of the process in which the notice to convene the meeting was issued under Section 15 of the Act of 1994, and as the President of the Anchalik Panchayat was also present in the meeting, the requirement of Section 15(1) of the Act of 1994 that the President of the Anchalik Panchayat shall convene the meeting has been duly satisfied. He submitted that the requirement of Section 15 of the Act of 1994 has been duly satisfied and thus, the motion of no-confidence does not suffer from any infirmity. He implored the Court to affirm the order passed by the learned Single Bench dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record. There is no dispute that the President of the Lala Anchalik Panchayat was present in the meeting dated 29.11.2022 convened to consider the motion of no-confidence against the appellant. It may be noted that the direction of this court in the order dated 04.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.6922/2022 was to the Secretary cum Executive Officer of the Lala Anchalik Panchayat for continuing with the no-confidence proceedings. Thus, it was incumbent upon the Secretary, Lala Anchalik Panchayat, to issue the notice for considering the motion of no-confidence and, as a consequence, he was perfectly justified in issuing the notice dated 16.11.2022 to consider the motion of no-confidence and there has been no violation of the mandate of Section 15(1) of the Act in convening the meeting aforesaid. As per sub-clause (1) of Section 15 of the Act of 1994, where the motion is moved against the President, the meeting will be presided over by the Vice-President of the Panchayat. However, as the Vice-President was not available in the Panchayat, the matter was referred to the Anchalik Panchayat. Thus, the President of the Anchalik Panchayat was required to preside over the meeting as per Section 15 of the Act, which precisely has been done in the case in hand. Page No.# 7/8 This Court has time and again considered the issue regarding technical defect in issuing the notice of no-confidence and the non-service thereof on the incumbent. In the judgment of Padmini Singha v. The State of Assam & Ors.1, Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, held that when the President against whom the no-confidence motion was moved, was himself present in the meeting, deficiency if any in issuance of the notice would not vitiate the proceedings. However, we do not find any deficiency in the manner in which the meeting was convened because as per Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, the President of the Anchalik Panchayat is required to convene the meeting within 7(seven) days from the date of receipt of information from the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and to preside over such meeting. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mumtaz Rana Laskar v. State of Assam2 held that the time frame prescribed under Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 was directory in nature. In another Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Habibur Rahman v. State of Assam & Ors.3, it was held that mere procedural irregularity in the matter of making the reference by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat either to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat or to the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have no bearing whatsoever upon the resolution passed in the specially convened meeting expressing want of no-confidence against the President or Vice-President of the Panchayat, as the case may be. Apparently thus, this Court has time and again held that the technical flaws in the procedure provided in Section 15(1) of the Assam Pancyayat Act would not vitiate the procedures. The same view was reiterated by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Forhana Begum Laskar v. State of Assam & Ors.4 In the present case, President of the Anchalik Panchayat received the information of the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by this court whereafter the meeting was convened vide notice dated 16.11.2022 issued by the Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat presumably under the directions of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat. The presence of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat in the meeting held to consider the motion of no-confidence purges the technical deficiency if any in the issuance of the proceeding.

(2018) 10 SCC 561 2006 (1) GLT 46 2006 [Supp] GLT 218 2009 (6) GLR 429 Page No.# 8/8 The motion of no-confidence proposed against the appellant/writ petitioner was carried through with 9 (nine) of the proposers voting against the appellant, 0 (zero) votes were cost against the motion. In this background, it is apparent that the appellant/writ petitioner lost confidence of the Panchayat and had no right to continue on the post of the President. In wake of the discussion made above, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing WP(C) 7986/2022 does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed as such. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Mitali Thakuria JUDGE Sd/- Sandeep Mehta CHIEF JUSTICE

PageoNo.#o1/8 GAHC010081722023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWA/140/2023o SALIMoUDDINoLASKARo S/OoANSARoUDDINoLASKAR,o oVILLAGE-oKUCHILAoGRANT,oP.O-oKUCHILAoBAZARoP.S.oANDoDISTRICTo -HAILAKANDI,oASSAMoPIN-o788155. VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo15oORS.o TOoBEoREPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEo GOVT.oOFoASSAM,oPANCHAYAToANDoRURALoDEVELOPMENTo DEPARTMENT,oDISPUR,oGUWAHATI. 2:THEoPRINCIPALoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVERNMENToOFoASSAM oPANCHAYAToANDoRURALoDEVELOPMENToDEPARTMENT oDISPUR oPANJABARIoROAD oJURIPAR oGUWAHATI-37 3:THEoDEPUTYoCOMMISSIONER oHAILAKANDI oP.OoANDoDISTRICT-oHAILAKANDI oASSAM o PIN-o788151 4:THEoCHIEFoEXECUTIVEoOFFICER oHAILAKANDIoZILLAoHAILAKANDI oASSAM oPIN-o788151 5:THEoSECRETARYoANDoEXECUTIVEoOFFICERoLALAoANCHALIKo PageoNo.#o2/8 PANCHAYAT oMONACHERRA oP.O-oMONACHERRA oDISTRICT-oHAILAKANDI oASSAM oPIN-788164 6:THEoPRESIDENT oLALAoANCHALIKoPANCHAYAT oVILLAGEoANDoP.O-MONACHERRA oDISTRICT-oHAILAKANDI oASSAM o PIN-788164 7:THEoSECRETARY oBORBONDoGAONoPANCHAYAT oP.O-KUCHILAoGRANT oP.O-oKUCHILAoBAZARoDISTRICT-oHAILAKANDI oASSAM.o PIN-o788155 8:JAHANARAoBEGUMoMAZARBHUIYA oGROUPoMEMBERoNO.1oOFoBORBONDoGAONoPANCHAYAT o W/OoLATEoSIRAJoUDDINoMAZARBHUIYAo R/OoVILLAGE-oBORBONDoPART-I oP.O-BORBONDoPART-Io oDISTRICT-oHAILAKANDI oASSAM o PIN-o788164 9:ALIAoBEGUMoBARBHUIYA oGROUPoMEMBERoNO.2oOFoBORBONDoGAONoPANCHAYAT o W/OoFARUKoAHMEDoBARBHUIYAo R/OoVILLAGE-oBORBONDoPART-I o P.O-oBORBONDoPART-Io oDISTRICTo-HAILAKANDI oASSAM o PIN-o788164 10:ABULoHUSSAINoBARBHUIYA oGROUPoMEMBERoNO.3oOFoBORBONDoGAONoPANCHAYAT o PageoNo.#o3/8 S/OoLATEoLALUoMIAoBARBHUIYAo R/OoVILLAGE-oBORBONDoPART-I oP.O-BORBONDoPART-Io oDISTRICT-oHAILAKANDI oASSAM o PIN-o788164 11:GAURANGAoDASoPURKAYASTHA oGROUPoMEMBERoNO.4oOFoBORBONDoGAONoPANCHAYAT o S/OoLATEoGOHINDRAoDASoPURKAYASTHAo R/OoVILLAGE-oBORBONDoPART-I oP.O-BORBONDoPART-Io oDISTRICT-oHAILAKANDI oASSAM o PIN-o788164 12:DEBOBRATAoROY oGROUPoMEMBERoNO.5oOFoBORBONDoGAONoPANCHAYAT o o S/OoLATEoSUKHoLALoROYo R/OoVILLAGE-KUCHILAoGRANT o P.O-KUCHILAoBAZAR o oDISTRICT-HAILAKANDI oASSAM o PIN-o788155 13:SAFIAoBEGUMoBARBHUIYA oGROUPoMEMBERoNO.7oOFoBORBONDoGAONoPANCHAYAT o W/OoSAMSoUDDINoBARBHUIYAo R/OoVILLAGE-oKUCHILAoGRANTo oP.O-oKUCHILAoBAZARo DISTRICT-oHAILAKANDI oASSAMo PIN-o788155 14:RUKIAoBEGUMoMAZUMDER oGROUPoMEMBERoNO.8oOFoBORBONDoGAONoPANCHAYAT o W/OoJALALoUDDINoMAZUMDERo R/OoVILLAGE-CHANDRAPUR Page No.# 4/8 P.O- KUCHILA BAZAR DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788155 15:SALIM UDDIN LASKAR GROUP MEMBER NO.9 OF BORBOND GAON PANCHAYAT S/O SUNDER RAJA LASKAR R/O VILLAGE-CHANDRAPUR P.O- KUCHILA BAZAR DISTRICT-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788155 16:KAMAL UDDIN LASKAR GROUP MEMBER NO.10 OF BORBOND GAON PANCHAYAT S/O SABIR AHMED LASKAR R/O VILLAGE- DUDPUR P.O- BALIURRA DISTRICT-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN 78815 For appellant(s) : Mr. M. H. Laskar, Advocate Mr. H. I. Choudhury, Advocate For respondent(s) : Mr. K. Konwar, Advocate (for R. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7) Mr. S. Konwar, Jr. GA, Assam (for R. 3) Ms. S. B. Choudhury, Advocate (for R. 8 to 16) BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA