Gauhati High Court
Smti Padmini Singha & 5 Ors vs The State Of Assam & 9 Ors on 24 November, 2017
Author: Manojit Bhuyan
Bench: Manojit Bhuyan
WA No.310 of 2016
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
24.11.2017
(Ajit Singh, C.J.)
Mr.NH Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr.RKD Choudhury, learned Senior Government Advocate,
Assam for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr.AMS Mazumdar, learned
counsel for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 and Mr.AAR Karim, learned
counsel for Respondent Nos.7 to 10.
This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated
9.8.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court,
whereby he has allowed WP(C) No.2051/2014 of Respondent No.6.
In the month of February, 2013, Respondent No.6 was elected
as President of Masughat Gaon Panchayat for 5 years i.e. upto
February, 2018. But, on 31.1.2014, a requisition was made under
Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 to discuss the no
confidence motion against respondent No.6. Since the meeting could
not be convened within the statutory period, the Secretary of the
Gaon Panchayat referred the matter to the President of the Anchalik
Panchayat for convening the meeting. Unfortunately, the President of
the Anchalik Panchayat also failed to convene the meeting and as
such, the matter was informed to the Deputy Commissioner to
convene the meeting. The Deputy Commissioner, in turn, vide
communication dated 17.3.2014, asked the Block Development Officer
to convene the meeting. In the result, the Block Development Officer
not only convened but also presided over the meeting on 31.3.2014.
And, on that date, no confidence motion was discussed whereafter;
resolution was passed against Respondent No.6. Aggrieved,
Respondent No.6 filed WP(C) 2051/2014 and challenged the resolution
of no confidence motion on the ground that since the meeting was not
Page 1 of 3
convened by the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) as
mandated under Section 15 of the Act, the resolution was bad in law.
Although the respondents defended the resolution of no confidence
motion passed against Respondent No.6, the learned Single Judge by
the impugned order has held that resolution was illegal and quashed
the same. It is in this backdrop, the appellants, who are members of
the Gaon Panchayat, have filed the present appeal.
The relevant Section 15(1) of the Act reads as under:-
"15. No confidence motion against the President and Vice
President.-(1) Every President or Vice-President shall be
deemed to have vacated his office forthwith when resolution
expressing what of confidence in him is passed by a majority
of two third of the total number of members of the Gaon
Panchayat.
Such a meeting shall be specially convened by the
Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat with approval of the
President of the Gaon Panchayat. Such meeting shall be
presided over by the President if the motion is against the
Vice-President; and by the Vice-President, if the motion is
against the President. In case such a meeting is not convened
within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of
notice, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat shall within three
days, refer the matter to the President of the concerned
Anchalik Panchayat who shall convene the meeting within
seven days from the date of receipt of the intimation from the
Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and preside over such
meeting.
In case the President of the Anchalik Panchayat does
not take action, within the specified seven days time, the
concerned Gaon Panchayat Secretary shall inform the matter
to the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) as
the case may be within three days after the expiry of the
stipulated seven days time and the concerned Deputy
Commissioner/Sub Divisional Officer (C ) shall convene the
meeting within seven days from the date of the receipt of the
information with intimation to the Zilla Parishad and the
Anchalik Panchayat and preside over the meeting so
convened:
Provided that the concerned Deputy
Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (C) as the case may be,
in case of his inability to preside over the meeting, may
Page 2 of 3
depute one Gazetted Officer under him not below the rank of
Class-I Gazetted Officer to preside over such meeting:
Provided further that when a non-confidence motion is
lost, no such motion shall be allowed in the next six months."
(Emphasis supplied)
A bare reading of the above quoted sub-section (1) of Section 15
makes it clear that after the matter is informed to the Deputy Commissioner
to convene the meeting, it is only the Deputy Commissioner, who can
convene the meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of the
information. Section 15 does not authorize the Deputy Commissioner to
delegate his power of convening the meeting to the Block Development
Officer. The Block Development Officer, who is a Gazetted Officer, at the
most, can preside over the meeting only when the Deputy Commissioner is
unable to preside over the meeting, so convened by him, and that too, on
being deputed by him. In the case at hand, admittedly, the meeting was not
convened by the Deputy Commissioner, as mandated under Section 15 of
the Act. It is well settled that where power is given to do a certain
thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at
all. All other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. [See
Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emporer, AIR 1936 Privy Council 253 (2) and
Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 14th Edition, P 468 ].
.
For these reasons, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the meeting was illegal and resolution of no confidence was invalid.
The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
skd
Page 3 of 3