High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2873/2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Judgment & Order (Oral) Heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Chetri, lear ned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr. KK Phukan, learned counsel appe aring for respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the proceedings of th 02. e meeting of Silapathar Town Committee held on 18.04.2013, whereby respondent No . 5 was elected as the Chairman. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the res pondents to hold fresh meeting for election of Chairman.
Decision
Case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is th 03. at he was elected as Commissioner from Ward No. 3 of Silapathar Town Committee i n the year 2009. Subsequently, he was elected as Chairman by the Ward Commissione 04. rs. Respondent No. 5 was elected as the Vice Chairman. A requisition signed by t hree Ward Commissioners expressing no confidence in the petitioner and calling f or holding a special meeting to discuss no confidence motion against the petitio ner was submitted on 02.03.2013. 05. Petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji on 05.03.2013 seeking time to convene such a meeting. As there was no re sponse from the Deputy Commissioner, petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 1352/2013. This Court by order dated 21.03.2013 disposed of the said p etition by directing the petitioner to convene meeting of Silapathar Town Commit tee on 10.04.2013 to discuss no confidence motion brought against him. 06. Accordingly, a special meeting of the Silapathar Town Committee was held on 10.04.2013. In the said meeting, no confidence motion against the pe titioner was adopted and petitioner was removed from the office of Chairman of S ilapathar Town Committee. On 17.04.2013, a notice was issued by the Vice Preside nt (respondent No.5) informing the Commissioners about holding of fresh election to the office of Chairman of 18.04.2013. Petitioner received the said notice in the evening of 17.04.2013. According to the petitioner, the two ex-officio memb ers, i.e. local MLA and the MP were not invited to attend the said meeting. Peti tioner could not attend because of short notice. Accordingly, the said meeting w as held on 18.04.2013 without the participation of the two ex-officio members as well as that of the petitioner. 07. Contending that the election of respondent No. 5 as Chairman was without following the due process of law, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. Respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 have filed a common affidavit. It is st 08. ated that Silapathar Town Committee comprised of four elected Ward Commissioners and has two ex-officio members, namely, local MLA and MP, total six Commissione rs. On 25.02.2013 three of the four Ward Commissioners, i.e. respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 held a meeting and took a resolution to move no confidence motion against the petitioner. Ultimately, on the direction of this Court, writ petitioner was compelled to convene a meeting on 10.04.2013 to discuss no confidence motion. In the said meeting, the two ex-officio members were not present. Thus, out of the total six members four were present in the meeting, amongst whom three supporte d the no confidence motion. Accordingly, the no confidence motion against the pe titioner was passed. After removal of the petitioner as Chairman on 10.04.2013, the Town Committee was without a regular Chairman and there was urgent necessity to elect a new Chairman. Accordingly, the Vice Chairman invited all the Commiss ioners on 17.04.2013 to attend meeting on 18.04.2013. Notice was served on all t he Commissioners, including the two ex-officio members. In the meeting held on 1 8.04.2013, three out of the six Commissioners were present and respondent No. 5 was elected as Chairman. Since then, respondent No. 5 is functioning as the Chai rman of the Town Committee. 09. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the second meeti ng was convened very hurriedly without giving any opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the ex-officio members to be present in the meeting held on 18.04. 2013. Only one day notice was given, which was wholly inadequate, which vitiated the proceedings of the meeting held on 18.04.2013. He, therefore, submits that the proceedings of the said meeting should be quashed and a direction be issued to hold a fresh meeting to elect a new Chairman. Both Mr. Chetri, learned State Counsel and Mr. Phukan, learned c 10. ounsel appearing for the private respondents submit that the Assam Municipal Act , 1956 does not prescribe any fixed period or any specific notice period for hol ding meeting to elect Chairman. They also submit that both the meetings held on 10.04.2013 and 18.04.2013 had the requisite quorum, i.e. presence of three Commi ssioners out of a total of six Commissioners, including the two ex-officio membe rs. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the election of respondent No. 5 as Chai rman of the Silapathar Town Committee. They contend that the writ petition is wh olly misconceived and devoid of merit and, therefore, the same should be dismiss ed. 11. e documents placed before the Court by Mr. Phukan, learned counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused th 12. Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (Act) is an enactment which provides f or organization and administration of municipalities in the State of Assam. As p er section 28(2) of the Act, an elected Chairman may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Board in favour of which not less than half of the whole number of Commissioners shall have given their votes at a meeting specially conv ened for the purpose. Under section 41(1), if any Chairman is unable to complete his full term of office, the vacancy so caused, including by way of removal, sh all be filled up by election and the person who may be elected shall fill up suc h vacancy for the remaining portion of the term for which such Chairman would ot herwise have continued in office. Sub-section (2) provides that in case of vacan cy in the office of Chairman, the Vice Chairman shall call a meeting so as to co mplete the election within 45 days of the vacancy. Section 43(2) provides that t he Chairman or in his absence the Vice Chairman may call a special meeting whene ver he thinks fit and shall call a meeting on a requisition signed by not less t han three of the Commissioners. Section 46 deals with quorum. In case of a meeti ng for election of Chairman, the quorum necessary for transaction of business is one half of the total number of the Commissioners. 13. Having broadly noticed the legal provisions relating to election or removal of Chairman of a Town Committee, Court is of the view that there is no specific time frame for holding a meeting to elect the Chairman. As noticed a bove, sub-section (2) of section 41 provides that in case of vacancy in the offi ce of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman shall call a meeting so as to complete the election within 45 days of the occurrence of the vacancy. Thus the Act provides for only an outer time limit to elect the Chairman without prescribing time lim it for issuance of notice. That being the position, this Court finds no infirmity in holdin 14. g of meeting on 18.04.2013 wherein, respondent No. 5 was elected as Chairman. 15. Regarding absence of the two ex-officio members, no grievance ha s been expressed by the said two members that they were not served notice becaus e of which they could not participate in the proceedings of the meeting held on 18.04.2013. In any case, the said meeting having been attended by three Commissi oners out of a total six, the holding of meeting was valid as the requisite quor um of half of the total number of the Commissioners was maintained. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no ground to inv oke its extra ordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the proceedings of the mee ting held on 18.04.2013. Writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, d ismissed. Documents furnished by Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondents are returned back. No costs.