Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/9 vs Page No.# 2/9 on 8 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010172592025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4528/2025
PAROMITA ROY SAHA AND ORS
W/O BIPUL SAHA, WARD COMMISSIONER, WARD NO. 01, LANKA
MUNICIPAL BOARD, HOJAI.
2: RAM PRASAD RAY
S/O MANURANJAN RAY
WARD COMMISSIONER
WARD NO. 08
LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD
HOJAI.
3: HIBJUR RAHMAN
S/O SAFIQUR RAHMAN
WARD COMMISSIONER
WARD NO. 03
LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD
HOJAI.
4: BISWAJIT DEB
S/O ARUN CHANDRA DEB
WARD COMMISSIONER
WARD NO. 11
LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD
HOJAI.
5: PARTHA SARATHI PAUL
S/O BHUPAL CHANDRA PAUL
WARD COMMISSIONER
WARD NO. 02
LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD
HOJAI
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/9
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE DIRECTOR
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
HOJAI.
4:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL)
HOJAI
SANKARDEVNAGAR
HOJAI
ASSAM
5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD
LANKA
HOJAI
6:ABHIJIT DAS
S/O MANORANJAN DAS
R/O PUNJABI BOSTI
P.O- LANKA
HOJAI
WARD COMMISSIONER
WARD NO. 04
LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD
HOJAI.
7:KANCHAN SHIL DAS
W/O SUKUMAR DAS
R/O SUBHASH NAGAR
P.O- LANKA
HOJAI
WARD COMMISSIONER
WARD NO. 05
LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD
HOJAI
8:MOUSHUMI DAS DEY
WIFE OF PINKU DEY
R/O NETAJI ROAD
LANKA TOWN
LANKA
Page No.# 3/9
HOJAI
WARD COMMISSIONER
WARD NO 6
LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD
HOJAI
9:RAJIV CHANDRA SHIL
S/O LATE SUNIL CHANDRA SHIL
R/O COLLEGE ROAD
LANKA TOWN
P.O- LANKA
HOJAI
WARD COMMISSIONER
WARD NO. 07
LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD
HOJAI.
10:MITRA CHANDA PAUL
W/O PREMANU PAUL
R/O NETAJI ROAD
LANKA TOWN
P.O- LANKA
HOJAI
WARD COMMISSIONER
WARD NO. 09
LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD
HOJAI
11:ROMA MAJUMDER
W/O MANURANJAN MAJUNDER
R/O DESHBANDHU PATH
LANKA TOWN
P.O- LANKA
HOJAI
WARD COMMISSIONER
WARD NO. 10
LANKA MUNICIPAL BOARD
HOJAI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K TALUKDAR, MR. J M A CHOUDHURY,T R OVUNG,K A
SODIAL
Advocate for the Respondent : FOR CAVEATOR, MR. M R SODIAL,MR. M H SAIKIA,GA,
ASSAM
Page No.# 4/9
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
ORDER
08.08.2025
Heard Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners.
Also heard Mr. B. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam
assisted by Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the State respondent
Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. R. P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. H.
Saikia, learned counsel, who appears on caveat for the respondent Nos.6 to 11.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed assailing the letter No.65671/Pt-III/18 dated 21.07.2025 issued under the
hand of the respondent No.3 i.e. the District Commissioner, Hojai,
Sankardevnagar.
3. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to the
different Annexures in the writ petition has stated that the writ petitioners are
the Ward Commissioners of the Lanka Municipal Board. Issues having been
raised of proceeding in no-confidence motion against the Chairman and the
Vice-Chairman of the said Board viz., the writ petitioner Nos.1 and 2, the writ
petitioners had earlier approached this Court in WP(C) No.3274/2025, wherein
by order dated 12.06.2025, the special meeting sought to be convened for
moving a no-confidence motion against the writ petitioners was kept in
abeyance. We are informed that the said writ petition was later withdrawn.
Records reveal that another writ petition bearing WP(C) No.3580/2025 was
preferred by the writ petitioners when a fresh requisition was initiated by
Page No.# 5/9
withdrawing the earlier requisition (which was in issue in WP(C) No.3274/2025).
When no interim protection was granted to the writ petitioners, they had
approached in an intra-court appeal bearing Writ Appeal No.219/2024, which
came to be disposed of on 14.07.2025 on the following terms :-
"11. Accordingly, in view of the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties, more particularly, the submissions
made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants, herein; this
Court, without entering into the merits of the matter, hereby directs the
parties to hold the meeting for consideration of the No Confidence Motion
in terms of the requisition, dated 13.06.2025, on 18 th of July, 2025, at 11
AM, in the Office of the Lanka Municipal Board, Hojai.
12. It is provided that the appellant No.1, shall issue requisite
communications to all concerned for attending the meeting so scheduled
on 18th of July, 2025, at 11 AM, in the premises of the Lanka Municipal
Board, Hojai.
13. It is also provided that the said meeting shall be so convened and
held, strictly, in terms of the provisions off the Assam Municipal Act,
1956, as amended.
14. With the above directions and observations, this writ appeal,
accordingly, stands disposed of."
4. Pursuant to the said directions passed in the Writ Appeal, a no-confidence
motion against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was held on 18.07.2025.
5. Mr. Talukdar has drawn our attention to the letter dated 18.07.2025 from
the President of the said meeting written to the District Commissioner, Hojai to
emphasise that the resolution was supported only by 6 (six) members whereas
Page No.# 6/9
the whole number of Commissioners is 13 and as such, the motion was lost
being supported by less than half the Commissioners. He has also drawn our
attention to the impugned communication dated 21.07.2025 to support the
apprehension that the State authorities are making moves to replace the
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively. By an
additional affidavit filed today, attention has been drawn to the letter dated
04.08.2025 wherein the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of
Housing and Urban Affairs, Dispur, Guwahati has enquired of the Director of
Municipal Administration, Assam as to whether, the "Body" of Lanka Municipal
Board has been removed and requested him to furnish a report in this regard.
6. Mr. R. P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel appearing on caveat has raised a
preliminary objection that the petitioners in the writ petition have not
challenged the resolution dated 18.07.2025 and as a matter of fact, the said
resolution has not been made a part of the records of this writ petition.
Stressing that in the absence of a challenge to the said resolution of 18.07.2025
the very writ petition would not be maintainable, he prays for dismissal of the
writ petition.
7. Mr. Sarmah, learned senior counsel has also referred to the decision of
this Court in Dilip Singh Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2008 1
GauLR 715 and to the case of Anita Gayan and another Vs. State of
Assam and others reported in 2015(3) GLT 80 while praying for dismissal of
the writ petition.
Page No.# 7/9
8. Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam has sought for
some time to obtain instruction on the action being taken by the respondent
authorities pursuant to the no-confidence motion, and also to procure the
records.
9. Issue notice of motion returnable in two weeks.
10. Since Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel assisting Mr. B. Goswami, learned
Addl. Advocate General, Assam has entered appearance and accepted notice on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. M. H. Saikia, learned counsel has
accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.6 to 11, service of notice is
deemed to be complete in this case. However, extra copies of the writ petition,
requisite in numbers, be furnished to the learned departmental counsel as well
as the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents within two
working days from today.
11. Heard on the prayer for interim protection.
12. Section 28 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 provides that an elected
Chairman or Vice Chairman may be removed from office by a resolution of the
Board in favour of which more than half of the whole number of Commissioners
shall have given their votes. In the present case, it is seen that the Municipal
Board in issue has 13 Ward Commissioners and the letter of the President of the
meeting to decide the no-confidence motion reflects that only 6(six) members
had voted in favour of the no-confidence.
13. Reference can be drawn to the judgment and order rendered in Jiten
Page No.# 8/9
Saikia and another Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2004 (2)
GLT 233 to say that any fraction even if it is less than 5 should be read as one
when no-confidence motion are being considered. Here, the number of
Commissioners being 13, half would be 6.5 which shall have to be taken as 7
and therefore, the no-confidence motion does not appear to have been
supported by more than half of the whole number of Commissioners.
14. A prima facie case has been made out by the petitioners that more than
half out of the whole Commissioners did not support the no-confidence motion.
The balance would tilt in favour allowing the mandate expressed on the floor of
the house to prevail over executive decision to act otherwise. Any interference
in the functioning of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in their respective posts would
not be in the interest of justice at this stage. Therefore, in my considered
opinion and more specifically, in view of the letter dated 04.08.2025, which is
annexed to the additional affidavit filed by the writ petitioners, it is provided
that, till the returnable date, the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall not in any
manner interfere with the functioning of the Municipal Board insofar as, the
position of the petitioners as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board are
concerned. In other words, no steps to remove or replace them from the said
offices shall be taken without the leave of the Court till the returnable date.
15. The issue raised by Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel that the writ
petition may fail in the absence of a challenge to the resolution dated
18.07.2025 will be taken up for consideration on the next date on receipt of
records.
Page No.# 9/9
16. List again on 26.08.2025.
17. Parties may exchange pleadings in the meantime to expedite the
adjudication in the matter.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
