Gauhati High Court
Luthfa Begum Laskar vs The State Of Assam And 16 Ors on 22 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010177882020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/200/2020
LUTHFA BEGUM LASKAR
W/O ALTAF HUSSAIN LASKAR, VILL. SONABARIGHAT PT. II, P.O.
SONABARIGHAT, P.S. SILCHAR (SADAR), DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-
788013
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 16 ORS.
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF ASSAM,
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CACHAR
SILCHAR
ASSAM
3:MARIA TANIM
ACS
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER
O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CACHAR
SILCHAR
PIN-788001
4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CACHAR ZILLA PARISHAD
SILCHAR
CACHAR
PIN-788001
5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (I/C)
SONAI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK CUM ASSTT. COMMISSIONER
Page No.# 2/7
P.O. SONAI
DIST. CACHAR ASSAM
PIN-788119
6:THE SECRETARY
SATKARKANDI GAON PANCHAYAT
P.O. SATKARAKANDI
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788013.
7:THE PRESIDENT
SONAI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT
P.O. SONAI
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788119
8:RASHARAJ DAS
OSD
CACHAR ZILLA PARISHAD
SILCHAR
CACHAR
ASSAM PIN-788001
9:NAZIYA SULTANA MAZUMDER
W/O ABDUL HAMID MAZUMDER
MEMBER
GROUP NO. 2
SONABARIGHAT G.P. R/O VILL. SONABARIGHAT
PT. I
P.O. SONABARIGHAT
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788013
10:GULSHONARA BEGAM CHOUDHURY
MEMBER
GROUP NO. 3
SONABARIGHAT G.P.
W/O HAMIDUL HAQUE CHOUDHURY
R/O VILL. SONABARIGHAT
PT. I
P.O. SONABARIGHAT
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788013
Page No.# 3/7
11:SAIDA BEGUM
MEMBER
GROUP NO. 1
SONABARIGHAT G.P. W/O SHIPON AHMED
R/O VILL. SONABARIGHAT
PT. I
P.O. SONABARIGHAT
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788013
12:SABANA BEGUM BARBHUIYA
MEMBER
GROUP NO. 7
SONABARIGHAT G.P. W/O AMINUL HAQUE LASKAR
VILL AND P.O. DHONEHARI PT. I
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788013
13:ALI HAIDAR CHOUDHURY
MEMBER
GROUP NO. 7
SONABARIGHAT G.P. S/O MAZARAF ALI CHOUDHURY
VILL. DHONEHARI
PT. III
P.O. SONABARIGHAT
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788013
14:HUSSAIN AHMED LASKAR
MEMBER
GROUP NO. 5
SONABARIGHAT G.P. S/O DILAWAR ALI LASKAR
VILL. SONABARIGHAT
PT. II
P.O. SONABARIGHAT
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
15:SAMINA AKHTAR BARBHUIYA
MEMBER
GROUP NO. 4
SONABARIGHAT G.P.W/O ANWARUL HAQUE LASKAR
VILL. SONABARIGHAT PT. II
P.O. SONABARIGHAT
DIST. CACHAR
Page No.# 4/7
ASSAM
PIN-788013
16:RACHANA BEGUM CHOUDHURY
W/O SALEH AHMED CHOUDHURY
VILL. AND P.O. DHONEHARI PT. I
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788013
17:SAMSUL HAQUE LASKAR
MEMBER
GROUP NO. 9
SONABARIGHAT G.P. VILL. DHONEHARI PT. III P.O. SONABARIGHAT
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-78801
Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI
Date : 22-01-2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. RKD Choudhury,
learned Addl. Senior Govt. advocate for respondent no.2, Mr. M. Nath, learned standing
counsel for the P&RD Department for respondent nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. PN Goswami,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 9 to 17. None appears on call for respondent nos. 3,
7 and 8.
2) Bereft of details, it would be sufficient for the purpose of this order to
Page No.# 5/7
narrate the brief facts of the case of the appellants in W.A. 200/2020. The appellant was the
elected President of 9 No. Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat. The respondent nos. 9 to 17, who
are the members of the said Gaon Panchayat had moved a motion of no confidence against
the appellant. By a resolution dated 21.08.2020 for removal of the appellant as President of
the said Gaon Panchayat was taken in the meeting of the said Gaon Panchayat. The
aggrieved appellant moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3411/2020 to challenge the said
resolution, amongst others, on the ground that it is vitiated by irregularities and was in
violation of the requirements of section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 by projecting
that under section 15(i) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 the President was entitled to at
least 15 (fifteen) days time to give approval for a meeting of no confidence against her, but
even before expiry of the said period, the Secretary of the 9 No. Sonabarighat Gaon
Panchayat had moved the President of Sonai Anchalik Panchayat under second paragraph of
section 15(i) of the said 1994 Act. As per order dated 08.09.2020, the learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 9 to 17 had made a statement that there is a possibility that the procedural
requirement of section 15(i) may not have been followed and upon instructions, the learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 9 to 17 had prayer to allow him to withdraw the resolution
dated 21.08.2020 by which the appellant had been removed from the post of 9 No.
Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat, which having not been objected to, was allowed by this Court
by the impugned order dated 08.09.2020, declaring the resolution dated 21.08.2020 to be
null and void. It was also provided that as the resolution has not been defeated, but it is a
case where it has not been pressed upon by the respondents, resulting in its withdrawal, view
was expressed by the learned Judge of this Court that the respondent nos. 9 to 17 are
entitled to proceed in any manner as they may be advised under the law.
3) The appellant had filed an application for review of the order dated
08.09.2020 and the learned Single Judge by order dated 15.10.2020 passed in Review Pet
No. 91/2020 "4. ... when there is a declaration that the resultant resolution passed in such
motion is null and void, it has to be understood that the motion was lost. When the motion
was lost, the consequence of the other relevant provisions of law including that there cannot
be a further no confidence motion again within a period of 6 (six) months would also be
Page No.# 6/7
applicable."
4) The aforesaid order dated 08.09.2020 was challenged by the respondent
nos. 9 to 17 by filing an intra-Court appeal, which was registered as W.A. No. 152/2020 and
the coordinate Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 24.11.2020, allowed
the said writ appeal and set aside the order dated 15.10.2020 passed in Review Pet. No.
91/2020 by clarifying that since the resolution dated 21.08.2020 passed the no- confidence
motion cannot be said to have been "lost" within the meaning of section 15(i) of the Act, the
bar in bringing no- confidence motion against the President within six months thereof will not
apply.
5) The appellant has now filed this intra-Court appeal against the order dated
08.09.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3411/2020, thereby allowing
the respondent nos. 9 to 17 to withdraw the resolution dated 21.08.2020 by which the
appellant was ousted from the office of the President of 9 No. Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat.
6) The power of review is exercised in consonance with the provisions of
Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the opinion of the Court, if a review is
granted, the decree of order of the Court stands modified. In that situation, the review
petition cannot be treated as a supplemental proceeding as envisaged under Part-VI of CPC
containing sections 94 and 95 CPC, as such, the original decree or order does not get revived
if the decree or order granting review is set aside. If one needs an authority on the point, the
case of Rekha Mukherjee Vs. Ashis Kumar Das, (2005) 3 SCC 427 (para-32) may be referred
to.
7) In view of the said finding, the Court is of the opinion that the review order
dated 15.10.2020 in Review Pet. No. 91/2020 had got merged with the judgment and order
dated 08.09.2020 rendered in W.P.(C) No. 3411/2020. On the order of review being set aside
by judgment and order dated 24.11.2020, passed by the co-ordinate Division Bench of this
Page No.# 7/7
Court in W.A. No. 152/2020, the appeal against the judgment and order dated 08.09.2020 is
held to be not maintainable on facts and in law.
8) This legal position can be examined in another manner. Assuming that the
appeal against the order dated 08.09.2020 is entertained and decided in favour of the
appellants by holding that the no-confidence motion was "lost", in that even it would operate
contrary to the ratio laid down by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in WA No.
152/2020, wherein it was held that since the resolution dated 21.08.2020 passed the no-
confidence motion cannot be said to have been "lost" within the meaning of section 15(i) of
the Act, the bar in bringing no- confidence motion against the President within six months
thereof will not apply.
9) Therefore, in view of the discussions above, this appeal stands dismissed as
not maintainable.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
