High Court · 2012

This order will dispose of WP(C) No.2864/2012 as well as the two Misc. cases, na mely, Misc. Case No.2084/12 and Misc. Case No.2104/2012. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the resolution dated 18.04.2012, passed in the special meeting of the Pathsala Town Committee, where by the petitioner was removed from the post of Chairman of the Town Committee. Case of the petitioner is that he is an elected Commissioner of Pathsala Town Co mmittee. On 14.4.2009, she was elected as Chairman of the Town Committee. On 22. 3.2012, three members of the Town Committee made a requisition under Section 43 (2) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (\the Act\ thereafter) for holding a specia l meeting of the Town Committee to discuss a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. Though the petitioner requested the requisitionists to reconsider t he matter, they by letter dated 11.4.2012 called for the special meeting on 18. 04.2012. Petitioner filed Title Suit No.6/2012 in the Court of Munsiff, Bajali seeking a decree for declaration that she has right, title and interest over the post of C hairperson of the Pathsala Town Committee. Further prayer made is for permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from convening the special me eting of the Town Committee. Along with the suit, an injunction petition was als o filed, which was registered as Misc.(J) Case No.7/2012. Learned Munsiff, Bajal i by order dated 17.4.2012 in Misc.(J) Case No.7/2012 ordered that the parties s hould maintain status quo regarding the special meeting for no confidence motion against the Chairperson of Pathsala Town Committee until further orders. However, on 18.4.2012, the special meeting of the Pathsala Town Committee was he ld. As per the resolution adopted, the petitioner was removed from the post of C hairman, Pathsala Town Committee. On 24.5.2012, the defendants in the Title Suit appeared before the Court below a nd informed the Court that the order of status quo was received at 12.30 PM on 1 8.4.2012 and that the special meeting was held prior to receipt of the order of the Court. In view of the aforesaid development, the injunction petition was di sposed of as having become infructuous. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 5.6.2012 with the prayer, as indicated above. This Court by order dated 14.6.2012, while issuing notice, directed that status quo as on 14.6.2012 on the functioning of the post of Chairman of Pathsala Town Committee should be maintained. Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 have filed Misc. Case No. 2084/2012 for vacation/modificat ion of the aforesaid order dated 14.6.2012. Likewise, the Respondent No. 4 has f iled Misc. Case No.2104/2012 seeking similar relief. Heard Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.3 & 5 and Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4. Mr. H. Buragoh ain, learned State Counsel appears for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice fixing the special me eting on 18.4.2012 was not served on Shri Ratul Roy, an elected Commissioner an d the local Member of Parliament, who is an ex-officio Member of the Town Commit tee. As notices were not served, the holding of special meeting on 18.4.2012 ca nnot be said to be proper and, therefore, the outcome of the said meeting is of no legal consequence. He further submits that the subject matter of the Civil Su it and that of the Writ Petition are different, and therefore, both can proceed simultaneously. Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.3 & 5 and Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 in their ident ical but separate submissions have contended that the Writ Petition itself is no t maintainable as the petitioner is pursuing two remedies simultaneously. They h ave further contended that the petitioner has lost the confidence of the majorit y and therefore, cannot continue as Chairman of the Town Committee. In fact, she has been removed as Chairman of the Town Committee but because of the status qu o order, petitioner is tying to create confusion. It is also submitted that on 1 9.04.2012, the Vice-Chairman i.e., the respondent No. 3 assumed charge as the Ch airman of the Town Committee. Learned State Counsel has no submission to make in this matter. The submissions made have been considered. The Pathsala Town Committee has four elected Commissioners and two ex-officio me mbers, total six. In the special meeting held on 18.04.2012, three were present and they voted in favour of the no-confidence motion. However, this Court refrai ns from examining the validity of the proceedings of the said meeting for the re ason given hereunder. In the course of the hearing, learned Counsels for the respondents have placed b efore this Court copies of the plaint in Title Suit No.6/2012 instituted by the petitioner as well as an amendment petition. As already indicated above, the pet itioner has sought for a declaration in the suit that she has right, title and interest over the post of Chairperson of the Town Committee and has also sought for permanent injunction against the defendants from convening the special meeti ng. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed an application before the Civil Court for amendment of the plaint. As per the petition seeking amendment, the petiti oner has sought for an injunction against the defendants debarring them from giv ing effect to the resolutions adopted in the special meeting held on 18.4.2012 a fter declaring the said special meeting as illegal and void. The prayer made in this writ petition, as already noticed above, is to set aside the resolution da ted 18.4.2012 passed in the special meeting of the Pathsala Town Committee. It is thus clear that the subject matter of the civil suit and that of the writ petition are almost identical, rather the same. It is well settled that a litigant normally should not be allowed to pursue two remedies on the same subject matter simultaneously. The entitlement of the peti tioner to hold the post of Chairman as well as the legality and validity of the proceedings of the special meeting of the Town Committee held on 18.4.2012 is th e subject matter of Title Suit No.6/2012 pending in the Court of Munsiff, Bajali . The said issue will be adjudicated by the Civil Court in due course. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present is not a case where this Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction unde r Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the competent Civil Court is in seisn of the matter. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petit ion. Same is accordingly dismissed. Status quo order passed on 14.6.2012 stands vacated.