Gauhati High Court
WA/106/2023 on 1 June, 2023
GAHC010054002023
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
1. WRIT APPEAL NO.106 OF 2023
1. Harmila Begum,
Wife of Nazrul Hoque,
Resident of Village: Nitainagar, PO:
Ratabari, District: Karimganj, Assam.
2. Hanif Uddin,
Son of Abdul Jalil,
Resident of Village: Hullashnagar,
PO: Anipur, District: Karimganj, Assam.
3. Jyothna Begum,
Wife Chad Uddin,
Resident of Village-37 Hall,
PO: Anipur, District: Karimganj, Assam.
4. Prithwish Kr. Saha,
Son of Prashanto Kr. Saha,
Resident of Village: Channighat,
PO: Anipur, District: Karimganj, Assam.
5. Alaka Malakar,
Wife of Rahul Malakar,
Resident of Village: Gandharaj Bari,
PO: Ratabari, District: Karimganj,
Assam.
6. Malati Sinha,
Wife of Mohitus Sinha,
Resident of Village: Beratuk,
PO: Anipur, District: Karimganj, Assam.
7. Anupam Saha,
Son of Late Monigopal Saha,
Writ Appeal Nos.106 & 72/2023 Page 1 of 15
Resident of Village: Amarkhal,
PO: Anipur, District: Karimganj, Assam.
8. Hafiza Begum Laskar,
Wife of Manjur Hussain,
Resident of Village: Bilbari,
PO: Anipur, District: Karimganj, Assam.
9. Sobir Ahmed,
Son of Late Sanuhar Ali,
Resident of Village: Dullavpur,
PO: Anipur, District: Karimganj, Assam.
........Appellants
-Versus-
1. Ruhul Amin,
Son of Late Eklasur Rahman,
Resident of Village-37 Hall, PO: Anipur,
PS: Ratabari, District: Karimganj,
Assam, PIN - 788734.
2. The State of Assam, represented by
the Commissioner & Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Panchayat &
Rural Development Department,
Dispur, Guwahati - 781006.
3. The Principal Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Panchayat &
Rural Development Department,
Panjabari, Guwahati - 781037.
4. The Deputy Commissioner,
Karimganj, District: Karimganj, Assam,
PIN - 788710.
5. The Chief Executive Officer,
Karimganj Zilla Parishad, PS & District:
Karimganj, Assam.
6. The Block Development Officer,
Dullabcherra, District: Karimganj,
Assam, PIN - 788736.
7. The President, Dullabcherra Anchalik
Panchayat, PO: Dullabcherra, PS:
Writ Appeal Nos.106 & 72/2023 Page 2 of 15
Ratabari, District: Karimganj, Assam,
PIN - 788736.
8. The Secretary, Anipur Gaon
Panchayat, PS: Ratabari, District:
Karimganj, Assam, PIN - 788734.
........Respondents
2. WRIT APPEAL NO.72 OF 2023
Ruhul Amin,
Son of Late Eklasur Rahman,
Resident of Village-37 Hall, PO: Anipur,
PS: Ratabari, District: Karimganj,
Assam, PIN - 788734.
........Appellant
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam, represented by
the Commissioner & Secretary to
Panchayat & Rural Development
Department, Government of Assam,
Dispur, Guwahati - 781006.
2. Government of Assam, Panchayat &
Rural Development Department,
Panjabari, Guwahati - 781037.
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Karimganj, District: Karimganj, Assam,
PIN - 788710.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Dullabcherra Development Block,
District: Karimganj, PIN - 788736.
5. The President, Dullabcherra Anchalik
Panchayat, PO: Dullabcherra, PS:
Ratabari, District: Karimganj, PIN -
788736.
6. The Secretary, Anipur Gaon
Panchayat, PO & PS: Ratabari, District:
Karimganj, Assam, PIN - 788734.
7. Harmila Begum,
Wife of Nazrul Islam,
Resident of Village: Nitainagar, PO:
Ratabari, District: Hailakandi, Assam,
PIN - 788734.
8. Hanif Uddin,
Son of Abdul Jalil,
Resident of Village: Hullashnagar, PO:
Anipur, District: Karimganj, PIN -
788734.
9. Jyothana Begum,
Wife Chad Uddin,
Resident of Village-37 Hall, PO: Anipur,
District: Karimganj, PIN - 788734.
10. Prithwish Kr. Saha,
Son of Prashanto Kr. Saha,
Resident of Village: Channighat, PO:
Anipur, District: Karimganj, PIN -
788734.
11. Alaka Malakar,
Wife of Rahul Malakar,
Resident of Village: Gandharaj Bari,
PO: Ratabari, District: Karimganj, PIN
- 788734.
12. Malati Sinha,
Wife of Mohitus Sinha,
Resident of Village: Beratuk, PO:
Anipur, District: Karimganj, PIN -
788734.
13. Anupam Saha,
Son of Late Monigopal Saha,
Resident of Village: Amarkhal, PO:
Anipur, District: Karimganj, PIN -
788734.
14. Hafiza Begum Laskar,
Wife of Manjur Hussain,
Resident of Village: Bilbari, PO: Anipur,
District: Karimganj, PIN - 788734.
15. Sobir Ahmed,
Son of Late Sanuhar Ali,
Resident of Village: Dullavpur, PO:
Anipur, District: Karimganj, PIN -
788734.
........Respondents
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
For the Appellants : Mr. S.K. Talukdar, Advocate in
Writ Appeal No.106/2023.
: Mr. S.B. Laskar, Advocate in Writ
Appeal No.72/2023.
For the Respondents : Mr. S.B. Laskar, Advocate for
respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal
No.106/2023.
: Mr. K. Konwar, Standing Counsel,
Panchayat & Rural Development
Department.
: Ms. S. Konwar, Junior Govt.
Advocate, Assam.
: Mr. S.K. Talukdar, Advocate for
respondent Nos.7 to 15 in Writ
Appeal No.72/2023.
Date of Hearing : 28.04.2023.
Date of Judgment & Order : 1st June, 2023.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[Sandeep Mehta, C.J.]
These two appeals take an exception to the
judgment & final order dated 07.02.2023 rendered by the
learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6971/2022 (Ruhul Amin
-Vs- State of Assam & Ors.), whereby the writ petition
under article 226 of the Constitution of India preferred by
the writ petitioner (appellant in Writ Appeal No.72/2023),
was accepted.
2. The appellant in Writ Appeal No.72/2023, namely,
Ruhul Amin, is the elected President of Anipur Gaon
Panchayat. The appellants in the connected Writ Appeal
No.106/2023 are the 9 (nine) Ward Members (respondent
Nos.8 to 16 in the writ petition), who introduced a no-
confidence motion against the appellant in Writ Appeal
No.72/2023, who is the elected President of the said Gaon
Panchayat. It is the claim of the appellant Ruhul Amin that
he was assaulted and was hospitalized from 23.09.2022 to
01.10.2022 and thus, no steps pursuant to receiving the
requisition notice under Section 15(1) of the Assam
Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "1994 Act")
dated 26.09.2022 could be taken. Thereafter, the Secretary
of the Gaon Panchayat referred the matter to the Anchalik
Panchayat in accordance with the provisions as contained
in Section 15(1) of the 1994 Act. The meeting at the
Anchalik Panchayat was convened on 17.10.2022 and the
motion was carried through.
3. The appellant Ruhul Amin filed the writ petition,
being, WP(C) 6971/2022 alleging inter alia that the
requisition notice dated 26.09.2022 was never brought to
his knowledge by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat.
The learned Single Judge held that there was no
proof on record to show service of the requisition notice
dated 26.09.2022 upon the appellant Ruhul Amin. The
respondent No.7 in the writ petition, who is the Secretary
of the Anipur Gaon Panchayat, could not have assumed
jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat
on 12.10.2022, i.e. well before the expiry of 15 (fifteen)
days from 01.10.2022. Accordingly, the resolution dated
17.10.2022 was held to have been drawn pursuant to an
illegal meeting and thus, the same was quashed. However,
the appellant Ruhul Amin being the elected President of
the Anipur Gaon Panchayat, was directed to convene a
special meeting of the Gaon Panchayat to consider the
motion of no-confidence brought against him by 9 (nine)
Ward Members by following the procedure prescribed
under Section 17(3) of the 1994 Act.
4. The appellant Ruhul Amin has preferred the writ
appeal being Writ Appeal No.72/2023 questioning the
direction given by the learned Single Judge to convene the
special meeting, contending that once the motion of no-
confidence is interfered by the High Court while exercising
the high prerogative writ jurisdiction, a fresh meeting to
consider the motion cannot be convened before expiry of
6(six) months, as mandated by second proviso to Section
15(1) of the 1994 Act.
5. The appellants in Writ Appeal No.106/2023 have
challenged the very same order dated 07.02.2023 on the
ground that the view taken by the learned Single Judge,
while interfering with the no-confidence motion taken in
pursuance of a lawfully convened meeting at the Anchalik
Panchayat, is totally unjustified and contrary to the
provisions of the 1994 Act. It was contended that notice of
the special meeting to be convened at the Anchalik
Panchayat was duly served on the appellant/writ petitioner
Ruhul Amin and the view taken by the learned Single Judge
holding that the notice was not served, amounts to causing
interference into the disputed question of facts and hence,
the judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge
is liable to be quashed.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the
impugned judgment and the material available on record.
7. The learned Single Judge for holding that the
notice of the special meeting was not properly served upon
the appellant made the discussion in Paragraphs 16, 17 &
17.1, which are reproduced for the sake of ready
reference:-
"16. In Habibur Rahman vs. State of Assam and
others, reported in 2006 [Supp] GLT 218, a Division
Bench of the Hon'ble Court has inter alia observed
that as soon as the President of the Gaon Panchayat
against whom the no confidence motion is brought, is
delivered with a copy of such requisition for special
meeting under Section 15[1] of the Assam Panchayat
Act, 1994, the provision contained in sub-section [1] of
Section 15 is to be held as complied with. The
requirement would be substantially complied with if
the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat delivers a copy
of such requisition to the President of the Gaon
Panchayat against whom no confidence motion has
been brought. There is no dispute to the propositions
laid down in Habibur Rahman [supra]. The
requisitionists herein i.e. the respondent nos. 8 - 16
had delivered the requisition notice dated 26.09.2022
to the Secretary of Anipur Gaon Panchayat [the
respondent no. 7] on 26.09.2022. The issue involved
herein is as to whether the respondent no. 7 who was
delivered with the requisition notice on 26.09.2022,
had brought the same to the knowledge of the
President of the Gaon Panchayat in the manner
required.
17. When the fact situation presented before the
this Court in the case in hand are looked at by
keeping into purview the provisions of Section 15[1] of
the Panchayat Act and the ratio laid down in Ali
Ahmed Mazumdar [supra], this Court finds that there
could be two possibilities in the case in hand, firstly,
the requisition notice was brought by the Secretary of
the Gaon Panchayat to the notice of the President on
01.10.2022 or on any day thereafter; and secondly,
the requisition notice was not brought by the
Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to the notice of the
President on 01.10.2022 or any day thereafter.
Before embarking on any of the two possibilities, it is
relevant to note that there is no material on record to
indicate that the petitioner had made any
endorsement on any official records relatable to the
motion of no confidence until 16.10.2022.
17.1. If it is assumed for the sake of argument that
the requisition notice was brought to the notice of the
petitioner by the respondent no. 7 on 01.10.2022 and
in the absence of any endorsement from the petitioner
either according or declining approval with regard to
convening of the special meeting, the respondent no. 7
could not have assumed jurisdiction to refer the
matter to the Anchalik Panchayat on 12.10.2022,
which was before expiry of 15 days from 01.10.2022.
With regard to the second possibility, neither the
official respondents nor the private respondents have
been able to bring any cogent materials to rebut in a
prima facie manner the contentions advanced on
behalf of the petitioner that the requisition notice
dated 26.09.2022 was never brought to his
knowledge by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat
through any official mode till he received the notice
dated 13.10.2022 issued from the end of the
respondent no. 6 informing that a special meeting
was being convened on 17.10.2022, on 16.10.2022.
In the factual matrix obtaining in the case, the onus
was on the respondents' side to bring cogent
materials on record in support of their claim that the
requisition notice was brought to the knowledge of the
President in the prescribed manner rather than the
petitioner who has asserted in a negative manner,
that is, the requisition notice was never brought to his
knowledge in the proper manner. In the light of the
discussion above, this Court has to observe that the
Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat did not bring the
requisition notice dated 26.09.2022, received by him
on 26.09.2022, to the knowledge of the President of
the Gaon Panchayat in the manner required. The one-
page note-sheet produced by the respondent no. 7
before this Court does not go to show that how he [the
respondent no. 7] had delivered or through whom he
had delivered the requisition notice to the President of
the Gaon Panchayat. The respondent no. 7 has also
failed to disclose how the one-page note-sheet along
with the requisition notice, had been received back by
him on 26.09.2022 or another date thereafter, after
the same were allegedly sent to the President of the
Gaon Panchayat i.e. the petitioner."
8. Even if we do not delve into the question whether
the Secretary duly informed the elected President of the
Anipur Gaon Panchayat, i.e. appellant Ruhul Amin,
regarding the special meeting to be convened at the
Anchalik Panchayat, the undisputed fact remains that the
matter was referred to the Anchalik Panchayat on
12.10.2022, i.e. before the expiry of 15(fifteen) days from
01.10.2022, which is in gross contravention to the
prescription of Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act.
The respondents have set up a case that the requisition
notice to convene the special meeting was brought to the
knowledge of the appellant Ruhul Amin on 01.10.2022, and
in such an event, he being the elected President, had the
liberty to convene the special meeting within 15(fifteen)
days. Hence, the reference made by the Secretary to the
Anchalik Panchayat on 12.10.2022 even before the period
of 15(fifteen) days had lapsed, was illegal. Thus, the
finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the
special meeting convened at the Anchalik Panchayat on
17.10.2022 suffers from procedural defect of being
convened before the completion of the mandatory period
of 15(fifteen) days, as prescribed in Section 15(1) of the
1994 Act, is based on a correct appreciation of facts and
law.
9. Having said so, now we advert to the issue as to
whether once the no-confidence motion was quashed/
interfered with on account of technical flaw in the
procedure, whether the learned Single Judge could have
directed convening of the meeting before expiry of the
period of 6(six) months, as mandated by second proviso to
Section 15(1) of the 1994 Act.
10. In view of the discussion made above, it is
apparent that the resolution of no-confidence drawn
against the appellant Ruhul Amin was interfered with and
quashed by the learned Single Judge on the technical
ground that the meeting was convened before expiry of
the period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of service of
the requisition notice and thus the same was in
contravention to prescription under Section 15(1) of the
1994 Act. Clearly thus, the motion was not lost but was
rather interfered with on purely a technical ground.
11. In this background, the law laid down by Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Forhana Begum
Laskar -Vs- State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2009
(3) GLT 575 clearly governs the controversy, wherein the
Full Bench considered the concept of the motion being lost
as is conceived of in second proviso to Section 15(1) of the
1994 Act. The discussion made by the Full Bench in
Paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 are reproduced herein below for
the sake of ready reference:-
"20. Does, this determination essentially signifies
that the no-confidence motion brought against the
appellant is lost as is conceived of in the 2nd proviso
to section 15(1)?
21. The word 'loss' as has been defined in Black's
Law Dictionary is:
'Loss:- Loss is a generic and relative term. It
signifies the act of losing or the thing lost; it is not a
word of limited, hard and fast meaning and has
been held synonymous with, or equivalent to,
'damages', 'damages', 'deprivation', 'detriment',
'injury'. It may mean act of losing, or the thing
lost."
22. The word 'lost' appearing in the 2nd proviso to
section 15(1), in deference to the fundamental
principles of statutory interpretation, has to be
essentially comprehended in the text and the context
in which it appears. When so construed and
interpreted, it, to start with, seems to signify a
rejection of a no-confidence motion on merits following
due deliberations in a meeting convened and held in
accordance with the procedure prescribed in section
15(1). It cannot be conceived of as an inevitable
consequence of any infringement of the prescribed
procedural rigour either by a breach of the time frame
or unwarranted interference of any authority at any
stage of the process or reasons akin thereto. Though,
such outrages depending on the nature and extent of
the consequential vitiation may render the process
illegal, the same per se, would not imply the loss of
the no-confidence motion as is contemplated in the 2nd
proviso to section 15(1) of the Act. A demonstrably
conscious act or omission on the part of those
supporting the motion resulting in the rejection of the
motion on merits or testifying the abandonment of the
pursuit would be essential to conclude such a
consequence. The bar against the permissibility of
initiation of such a motion within next six months
after it is lost in the first venture, in our opinion is
decisively redolent of this view. The quintessence of
the proviso, according to us, is to sanction a
temporary reprieve to the President or the Vice-
President of the Gaon Panchayat, in case the no-
confidence motion brought against him/her stands
defeated on merit so as to relieve him/her of a fresh
ordeal of suffering the same exercise in quick
successions. The legislative intendment as discernible
is thus that a no-confidence motion brought against
the President or the Vice-President of the Gaon
Panchayat is lost within the meaning of 2nd proviso to
section 15(1) of the Act, if either it is rejected on due
deliberations in a meeting duly convened as enjoined
therein or if the motion fails for cause or causes other
than procedural defects or irregularities in convening
the meeting be it for the violation of the time frame or
uncalled for or unauthorized intervention of any
authority not contemplated in the scheme statutorily
delineated for adherence. Whereas, such an
infringement of the time schedule prescribed for the
successive stages, or interferences of authorities not
envisaged depending on the extent and the nature of
the impairment caused thereby, may render an
ongoing process vitiated thereby, the inescapable
consequence thereof need not necessarily be that the
motion would be lost as comprehended in the 2nd
proviso to section 15(1) of the Act. Such a
consequence is also neither discernible nor deductible
from section 15(1). We, thus, cannot lend our
concurrence to the plea that each and every non-
compliance of the procedural essentials for
prosecuting the process of no-confidence motion
would, inexorably imply that it (motion of no-
confidence) would be lost. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, having regard to the
nature of the contraventions, we are of the unhesitant
opinion that though the proceedings of the meeting
dated 12.3.2009 are invalid in view of the
unauthorised intrusion of the Anchalik Panchayat in
the process, it would not connote that the no-
confidence motion thereby, had been lost so as to
attract the bar against initiation of a fresh pursuit
with the same objective within six months thereafter.
The process, in our view subsists and is capable of
being furthered from the stage of the receipt of the
requisition dated 19.2.2009 expressing the no-
confidence against the appellant."
12. The Full Bench laid down a principle that non-
compliance of the procedural essentials for prosecuting the
process of no-confidence motion would not imply that it
would be lost and thus the bar of 6(six) months contained
in Section 17(1) of the Act would not in any manner come
in the way of re-convening the meeting as per law.
13. As in the case at hand, the no-confidence motion
was not interfered on any substantive grounds but was
rather quashed on account of a procedural defect, the
learned Single Judge committed no error whatsoever in
directing that a fresh meeting would be convened by the
appellant Ruhul Amin after complying the requirement of
Section 15 of the 1994 Act. We do not find any justifiable
cause to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the
learned Single Judge. Hence, both the appeals fail and are
dismissed as being devoid of merit.
14. The appellant Ruhul Amin shall comply with the
directions given by the learned Single Judge and convene
the meeting within a period of 15(fifteen) days from today
after complying with the requirements of Section 15 of the
1994 Act for considering the motion of no-confidence
brought against him by 9(nine) Ward Members of the
Anipur Gaon Panchayat in accordance with the directions
given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment & order dated 07.02.2023 passed in WP(C)
No.6971/2022.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
