High Court · 2012

Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr . J.K. Parajuli, learned State Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 as well as Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6. The petitioners are the Chairman and Vice Chairperson respectively of Rangapara Town Committee and the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are Ward Commissioners of Rangapar a Town Committee. By this application under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petition ers have prayed for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the requisition n otice dated 25.07.2011 as well as the motion of no confidence adopted on 23.08.2 011 against the petitioners removing them from the office of the Chairman and Vi ce Chairperson, respectively, of the Rangapara Town Committee. The approval gran ted on 29.08.2011 approving the No Confidence Resolution adopted on 23.8.2011 is also under challenge. On 7.9.2011, this Court admitted this writ petition. While issuing notice on the interim prayer, this Court passed an order staying the resolution adopted in th e proceeding of the Town Committee meeting dated 23.08.2011 removing the petitio ners from the office of the Chairman and Vice Chairman. Thereafter, on an application filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, for alteratio n, modification and vacation of the interim order dated 7.9.2011, which is regis tered as Misc. Case No. 2871/2011, this Court, by an order dated 29.9.2011, whil e holding that, prima facie, there is a violation of the provisions of Section 4 3(2) of The Assam Municipal Act, 1956, for short, the Act, declined to interfere with the interim order passed. This Court, however, provided that the Ward Comm issioners would be at liberty to bring a fresh No Confidence Motion against the writ petitioners, if so advised and on that note, the Misc. Case was disposed of . Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel for the petitioners is precise in his su bmission and he submits that a bare perusal of the requisition notice dated 25.7 .2011 would show that the No Confidence Motion was initiated by two Ward Commiss ioners and therefore, in view of Section 43(2), the very initiation of the proce ss is bad in law and therefore, consequential actions are also liable to be adju dged null and void. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents. Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 tries to cont end that in view of the order dated 29.9.2011 passed in Misc. case No. 2871/2011 , the writ petition has become infructuous. In view of the stand taken by respon dent Nos. 3 to 6, the learned counsel does not submit anything on the legality o r otherwise of the requisition notice dated 25.7.2011. This Court is unable to accept the contention of Mr. Roy that the writ petition has spent its force. The requisition notice dated 25.07.2011 is one of the subje ct matters of this writ petition and the same was not adjudicated by the order d ated 29.09.2011 passed in the Misc. Case No. 2871 of 2011. By the said order, as already noted above, liberty was granted to initiate a fre sh No Confidence Motion against the petitioners, if so advised. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is a surviving lis and that is required to be adjudicated in this writ petition. Section 43(2) of the Act provides that the Chairman, or in his absence, the Vice Chairman may call a special meeting whenever he thinks fit and shall call one o n a requisition signed by not less than three of the Commissioners. Section 43(3) of the Act provides that if the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman fail s to call special meeting to meet within twenty days after any such requisition has been made, the meeting may be called by the persons who signed the requisiti on. Section 28(2) provides that an elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Board in favour of which not less than h alf of the whole number of Commissioners shall have given their votes at meeting specially convened for the purpose. Section 44(2) provides that when a meeting under Section 28 is held for the remo val of the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman or both,- (a) the Vice-Chairman or in his absence a member duly elected at the meeting shall preside if the resolution relates to the removal of the Chairman; a member duly elected at the meeting shall preside if the resolution rel the Chairman or in his absence a member duly elected at the meeting shal (b) l preside if the resolution relates to the removal of the Vice-Chairman; (c) ates to the simultaneous removal of both the Chairman and the vice-Chairman. The requisition dated 25.07.2011 is signed by two Commissioners. By the said let ter the Chairman, Rangapara Town Committee was requested to call a Board meeting to discuss the No Confidence Motion against him and the Vice Chairperson. There fore, the Chairman is not, under law, required to call a special meeting on the basis of the requisition signed by two Ward Commissioners. If that be so, the re solutions adopted on 23.08.2011 and 29.08.2011 in meetings called by the Ward Co mmissioners on the ground that the Chairman had failed to convene the meeting ar e without jurisdiction and no legal consequences can ensue towards removal of th e Chairman and the Vice- Chairman on the basis thereof. As this Court has already taken the view that the Chairman and the Vice Chairman are not statutorily required to call a special meeting in the event of the req uisition being signed by two Ward Commissioners, it is not necessary for this Co urt to interfere with the requisition dated 25.07.2011. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the resolutions dat ed 23.08.2011 and 29.08.2011. No costs.