High Court · 2012

We have heard Mr. AM Barbhuiyan, learned counsel for the writ appellant/writ pet itioner and Mr. PS Deka, learned State Counsel, Assam. For the order proposed to be passed, we do not consider it necessary to issue fo rmal notice on the other respondents. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal are th at on 26.02.2012 nine members of the aforenamed Gaon Panchayat had submitted a r epresentation expressing no-confidence against the writ appellant/writ petitione r seeking removal from the office of the President thereof. The Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat put up the same before him only on 07.03.2012 at 3.30 pm, whereu pon, he made an endorsement on the body thereof in the following terms:- (cid:28)Wait for vetting by Secretary P/L Gaon Panchayat President Sd/ Illegible, 07.03.2012, Time 3.30 p.m President, Matijuri Paikan GP (cid:29) This document (Annexure B) at page 69 of the appeal brief shows that the forward ing note of the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat is dated 29.02.2012. The meeting having not been convened by the writ appellant/writ petitioner within the time frame of 15 days as contemplated by the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short her eafter referred to as the Act), on 13.03.2012 the matter was forwarded to the An chalik Panchayat by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. The jurisdictional Anch alik Panchayat in turn, by its order dated 14.03.2012 convened the meeting to di scuss the no-confidence motion against the writ appellant/writ petitioner, fixin g 17.03.2012. The writ appellant/writ petitioner, as the record reveals, on 16.0 3.2012 by his letter of that date requested the President of the Anchalik Pancha yat to defer the date of the meeting, informing that in between on 16.03.2012 hi s father had expired following an accident. The meeting was, eventually, held on 20.03.2012, in which the writ appellant/writ petitioner was not present and the no-confidence motion was passed against him. In this background, the writ appel lant/writ petitioner sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court assail ing the validity of the proceedings of the no-confidence motion on the ground of violation of mandatory precepts of Section 15 of the Act his chief challenge be ing that as 15 days, as required by the Act, had not expired from the date of hi s knowledge of the requisition i.e. 07.03.2012, the Secretary of the Gaon Pancha yat could not have forwarded the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat. As mentioned hereinabove, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.03.2012, on a prima facie consideration of the averments made in the writ petition, kept the impugned resolution of no-confidence against the writ appellant/writ petitio ner in abeyance and ultimately, by the order impugned on the interim application filed by the respondent Nos. 8 to 16 in the writ proceedings, the interim restr aint was recalled. Mr. Barbhuiyan, has emphatically argued with reference to Section 15 of the Act and the document at Annexure-B in particular that as it would be evident therefr om that the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had, without any authority, forwarde d the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat before the expiry of 15 days contemplated in law, the proceedings of the no-confidence motion being in violation thereof (section 15) are non est and thus the impugned order, in the interest of justice , ought to be interfered with. He has also urged that in the alternative that as the writ appellant/writ petitioner, though, aware of the date of the meeting co nvened by the Anchalik Panchayat would not attend the same as he was in bereavem ent, the learned Single Judge, in view of the above ought to have maintained the interim restraint till the final adjudication of the writ proceeding. In suppor t of his submission Mr. Bhuyan has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’bl e Apex Court in VIJAY NARAYAN THATTE & ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., (20 09) 9 SCC 92. In response, Mr. Deka, has insisted that having regard to the sequence of events as is evident from the pleaded facts and the documents on record, no interferen ce at this stage with the impugned order is warranted. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the a forestated facts, we are inclined to sustain the contention raised on behalf of the State respondents. A bare perusal of the document at Annexure-B would reveal that the appellant/writ petitioner was, admittedly, aware, at least on 07.03.20 12 that a representation had been submitted by 9 members of the Gaon Panchayat o n 27.02.2012 lodging a request to requisition a meeting to discuss the issue of no-confidence motion against him. In that view of the matter, prima facie, it do es not appeal to us that he was not aware as on 07.03.2012 about the factum of s ubmission of such representation on the aforementioned issue on 27.02.20122. We leave the matter at that as the writ petition is pending for final adjudication on merits. Suffice it to mention that having regard to the framework of time prescribed by section 15 of the Act and the materials on record, we are not inclined to interf ere with the order impugned. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in VIJAY NAR AYAN THATTE & ORS. (Supra), enunciates the proposition that there cannot be any estoppel against statute. We fail to comprehend as to how this decision is relev ant for the issue in hand or is of any avail to the writ appellant/writ petition er. In the above view of the matter, this appeal fails and is dismissed. No cost s.