High Court · 2012

Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. D. K.Saikia submits that the Gaon Panchayat comprises of ten members. Seven members i.e., the petitioner s, have lost confidence in him. When seven out of ten members, which is more th an two third of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat, have expresse d no confidence against the respondent No.5, she cannot continue to hold her off ice which would not only be against the letter and spirit of the Act but against all democratic norms as well.

8. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents 5 and 6 submit that there was no compliance with the procedural requirement. They furthe r submit that when the petitioners, who were the requisitionists, themselves did not attend the special meeting convened by the Secretary to discuss the motion of no-confidence against the respondent No.5, no further grievance can be made o ut by the petitioners for removal of the respondent No.5 as the President of the Gaon Panchayat.

9. The submissions of the learned counsels have been considered.

10. Section 6 of the Act provides that the Gaon Panchayat shall cons ist of ten members, including the President, to be directly elected. Normally an d as a general rule, procedure cannot override the substance. But in the case of removal of the President, he being directly elected as such, adherence to the p rescribed procedure is insisted upon. Section 15 of the Act deals with removal of the Preside 11. nt. If a no-confidence motion against the President is passed by a majori ty of two third of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat, he shall b e deemed to have vacated his office forthwith. As per Section 15(2) of the Act, requisition for such a meeting should be signed by not less than one third of th e total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat and should be delivered to the P resident or the Vice President as the case may be with information to the Deputy Commissioner. Such a meeting shall be specially convened by the Secretary of t he Gaon Panchayat with the approval of the President. If the motion is against t he President, such meeting shall be presided by the Vice President. If such meet ing is not held within fifteen days, a procedure is laid down for the Secretary to follow. Such meeting can be held by giving three days notice as per Section 1 7(3) of the Act. Under section 18(5) of the Act, where in a meeting a no-confide nce motion is discussed, the matter should be decided by secret ballot.

12. In this case, it is seen that the seven petitioners who are memb ers of the Gaon Panchayat, had submitted a requisition dated 10-12-2010 to the D eputy Commissioner with copies to various authorities including the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. Though the said requisition is not in conformity with the r equirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 15, nevertheless, the Secretary took no tice of it and after obtaining the approval of the President, convened a special meeting of the Gaon Panchayat on 27-12-2010 at 11AM in the office of the Secret ary to discuss the no-confidence motion.

13. What happened thereafter on 27-12-2010 is disputed by the partie s. According to the petitioners, they had gone to attend the meeting but found t he President present in the meeting venue ready to preside over the meeting. It is the further case of the petitioners that the President and her two supporters created a ruckus because of which holding of meeting became impossible. They th erefore left the meeting and held a separate meeting in a different venue wherei n the seven of them adopted a resolution accepting the no confidence motion agai nst the petitioner and electing the petitioner No.1 as the President. As against this, the contesting respondents have stated that the petitioners did not turn up for the meeting on 27-12-2010 and, therefore, because of lack of quorum, the meeting could not be held. However, they have also admitted about the presence o f the respondent No.5 in the meeting venue.

14. It is highly improbable that the petitioners who had signed the requisition to hold a special meeting of the Gaon Panchayat to discuss no-confid ence motion against the respondent No.5 would themselves remain absent from such a meeting unless a situation is so created. The Secretary ought to have ensured that the President was not present at the meeting venue as the no-confidence mo tion was directed against her. The presence of the President in the meeting venu e on the date and time of the meeting can be said to have created a situation wh ere holding of such meeting became impossible. On the other hand, holding of sep arate meeting by the petitioners adopting resolutions therein removing the respo ndent No.5 as the President of the Gaon Panchayat and electing the petitioner No .1 in his place has not been acknowledged by the Secretary, respondent No.6.

15. In a situation where seven out of ten members of the Gaon Pancha yat have expressed lack of confidence in the President, it would be against the provisions of the Act and democratic principles if the President is allowed to c ontinue to hold her office without facing the no-confidence motion. In such circ umstances, this Court is of the view that it would be in the interest of justice if a fresh meeting of the Gaon Panchayat is directed to be held to discuss and decide the no-confidence motion brought against the President, respondent No.5.

16. In view of above, the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur is directed to convene a special meeting of the Gaon Panchayat either by himself or by an O fficer deputed by him on or before 30-06-2012 to discuss and decide the motion o f no-confidence brought against the President of the Gaon Panchayat. Such meetin g shall be presided by the Deputy Commissioner himself or by the deputed officer . The Deputy Commissioner shall ensure that the meeting is held in a proper mann er and shall also make necessary security arrangement. It is made clear that wha t over decision is arrived at in the said meeting, the same shall be given effec t immediately as Section 15(1) of the Act does not provide for according of appr oval to resolution adopted in such meeting.

18. Writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.