Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 249 (GAU)

Abdul Kuddus v. State of Assam

2012-02-22

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2012
JUDGMENT Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8. Despite notice, respondent Nos. 5, 9 and 10 did not enter appearance and consequently, this Court by an order dated 29.08.2011, indicated that the proceeding will proceed ex-parte against them. 2. Eight members of Mahguri Gaon Panchayat under Juria Anchalik Panchayat brought a no confidence motion against the President by a requisition notice dated 25.03.2011 and in order to discuss the aforesaid no confidence motion, a special meeting was convened on 18.04.2011. 3. Minutes of the proceeding of the special meeting dated 18.04.2011 was signed by Mohammad Abdul Kuddus, Vice-President of the Panchayat who had presided over the meeting. On 19.04.2011, a communication was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon by eight requisitionists including Mohammad Abdul Kuddus, stating that the Secretary had incorporated a sentence, which reads "None of the allegations are true", in the proceeding and the same was an act of falsification. It was further indicated that all the allegations brought against the President are correct and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon was requested to take steps on the no confidence motion brought against the President and to make an enquiry on the falsification done by the Secretary in recording the proceeding. On 19.04.2011, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had forwarded the minutes of the proceeding of the special meeting held on 18.04.2011 for consideration of the no confidence motion to the Executive Officer, Juria Anchalik Panchayat i.e. the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 again convened a meeting of no confidence motion on 21.04.2011, where, however, no business was transacted as the complaint dated 19.04.2011 was pending before the Deputy Commissioner. The Executive Officer, Juria Anchalik Panchayat, thereafter, directed the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat by letter dated 30.04.2011 to delete the doubtful sentence, i.e. "none of the allegations are true" from me minutes of the proceeding in terms of the opinion of both the parties in the meeting held on 29.04.2011. The Executive Officer, Juria Anchalik Panchayat, thereafter, directed the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat by letter dated 30.04.2011 to delete the doubtful sentence, i.e. "none of the allegations are true" from me minutes of the proceeding in terms of the opinion of both the parties in the meeting held on 29.04.2011. The respondent No. 6 in his affidavit has stated that the meeting held on 18.04.2011 did not pass any resolution of no confidence motion against the President and that in the meeting convened on 29.04.2011 to discuss the no confidence motion, also, no discussion in that regard took place. 4. No reply affidavit has been filed against the affidavit of the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 8, in his affidavit, has stated that the members unanimously adopted a resolution that the replies of the President and Secretary on the eleven allegations leveled against the respondent No. 8 in support of the no confidence motion are to be sent to the Departmental authorities for consideration. It has also been stated that considering the nature of the no confidence proceeding, the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon be directed to drop the proceeding. No reply-affidavit has been filed against the affidavit of the respondent No. 8. 5. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that once the no confidence motion has been initiated, it is obligatory on the part of the authorities to bring the same to a logical end by allowing the requisitionists to pass a resolution on the no confidence motion. He contends that in the instant case due to the role played by the Secretary of the Society, no resolution on the no confidence motion was adopted in the meeting held on 18.04.2011 and the matter was referred to the departmental authorities for consideration. He has also submitted that some manipulations were also resorted to while recording the proceeding of the meeting held on 18.04.2011 and the Executive Officer, Juria Anchalik Panchayat, accordingly, had directed for deletion of one sentence. He prays that a direction should be given to the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon to convene a special meeting for discussion of the no confidence motion brought against the President of the Gaon Panchayat by the requisition dated 25.03.2011. He prays that a direction should be given to the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon to convene a special meeting for discussion of the no confidence motion brought against the President of the Gaon Panchayat by the requisition dated 25.03.2011. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in Forhana Begum vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2009 (3) GLT 575 (FB) with particular reference to paragraph 22. 6. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, on the other hand, submits that in the special meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion, which was convened on 18.04.2011, the members had unanimously resolved that the President and Secretary had given replies against the eleven allegations of no confidence motion and the same be forwarded to the department authorities for consideration. Assuming but not admitting that there was insertion of a sentence as contended by the petitioners, the same is not material for the purpose of this case as the materials on record would demonstrate, and which is also an admitted position, that no resolution was adopted or passed against the respondent No. 8 in the meeting held on 18.04.2011 expressing want of confidence on him. On the contrary, he submits that in the discussion, all eleven allegations brought against the respondent No. 8 were satisfactorily explained and as such the requisitionists did not even consider putting the no confidence motion to vote. He submits that by necessary implication, it has to be construed that the no confidence motion had lapsed and stood automatically cancelled and is lost. It is also his submission that once a special meeting for consideration of a no confidence motion is convened and the motion is discussed and subsequently, no resolution was adopted expressing no confidence, the requisition lapses and in that view of the matter, the convening of the subsequent meetings for discussion of the no confidence motion was not in accordance with law. The learned counsel further submits that the proviso to Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, for short, the Act, also makes it clear that if for lack of quorum, a special meeting to discuss no confidence motion cannot be held, the motion shall be deemed to have been lost. 7. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8 also endorses the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam. 7. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8 also endorses the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam. 8. The procedure for initiating a no confidence motion and the role to be played by the functionaries under the Act is delineated in Section 15 of the Act. The President or Vice-President shall be deemed to have vacated his post forthwith when resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by majority of 2/3rd of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat in a meeting to be specially convened by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat with approval of the President of the Gaon Panchayat. The quorum and procedure of meeting of the Gaon Panchayat is laid down in Section 18of the Act. Section 18(5) provides that the voting in any meeting of Gaon Panchayat, if required, shall be by raising of hands except in the meeting where no confidence motion is discussed where the matter will be decided by secret ballot. 9. Some of the elected members of the Gaon Panchayat had brought the no confidence motion against the respondent No. 8. The holding of the special meeting for the purpose of discussing no confidence motion is not in dispute. It is not the case of the parties that the meeting was held in violation of the Provisions of Section 15 of the Act. The said meeting was attended by ten members including the President of the Gaon Panchayat and the meeting was presided over by Mohammad Abdul Kuddus, who is the Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat in question. It is also an admitted position that no resolution was adopted in the said meeting regarding the no confidence motion. 10. It will be relevant to note the resolution adopted in the meeting dated 18.04.2011 which reads as: "Lastly today, the house unanimously resolved that the President/Secretary gave reply against all the eleven points of no confidence motion. The aforesaid replies are forwarded to the departmental authorities for consideration. It is to be mentioned that as per the opinion of the house, the allegations raised in the house are not proved as true". 11. There is an allegation of the writ petitioners that the sentence "none of the allegations are proved" was incorporated by the Secretary all by himself. It is to be mentioned that as per the opinion of the house, the allegations raised in the house are not proved as true". 11. There is an allegation of the writ petitioners that the sentence "none of the allegations are proved" was incorporated by the Secretary all by himself. This sentence in quotation above does not find place in the resolution of the meeting dated 18.04.2011. Perhaps what was sought to be conveyed is that the "allegations raised in the house are not proved as true" as recorded in the minutes of meeting dated 18.04.2011 is the handiwork of the Secretary. From the letter dated 30.04.2011, it would appear that on the opinion of both the parties, in the meeting held on 29.04.2011, it was unanimously resolved to delete the aforesaid doubtful sentence from the proceeding. However, according to the considered opinion of the Court, nothing hinges on the aforesaid "doubtful sentence" to resolve the dispute as projected in the present application. 12. The question that falls for consideration in this case is what will be the effect if in a special meeting of the Gaon Panchayat for discussing no confidence motion, no resolution was adopted either expressing a vote of confidence or a vote of no confidence and the second question is as to whether in such an event, the no confidence motion can be considered in a subsequent special meeting. 13. At this juncture, it is also important to bear in mind that there is no provision in the Act to deal with the situation confronting the aforesaid questions. Proviso to Section 15 only indicates that if a special meeting cannot be held on the day when the special meeting was convened due to lack of quorum, the no confidence motion shall be deemed to have automatically stood cancelled and the motion shall also be deemed to have been lost. 14. The special meeting for discussing the no confidence motion is to be convened on the basis of a requisition of a required number of members as provided by Section 15(2) of the Act. In the facts of this case, the special meeting was held. 14. The special meeting for discussing the no confidence motion is to be convened on the basis of a requisition of a required number of members as provided by Section 15(2) of the Act. In the facts of this case, the special meeting was held. However, admittedly no resolution expressing no confidence against the respondent No. 8 was passed and the undisputed resolution that is recorded in the minutes of the special meeting held on 18.04.2011 is to the effect that the replies given by the respondent No. 8 was to be forwarded to the departmental authorities for consideration. This by itself signifies that the requisitionists did not want to pursue the no confidence motion by putting the motion to vote and, therefore, for all intents and purposes, the motion was not carried forward and it would have to be construed to have been cancelled. Meeting having been held, the requisition for the special meeting no longer survives and, therefore, no further meeting could be convened on the strength of the requisition dated 25.03.2011. 15. Whether such cancellation amounts to saying that motion was "lost" may not be required to be gone into in the instant case. The motion being "lost" has special significance in view of the fact that once a motion is "lost", no such motion, in view of the Provision of the Act as contained in Proviso to Section 15(1) and also Proviso to Section 15(5), shall be allowed in the next six months. In paragraph 22 of Forhana Begum Laskar (supra), this Court emphasized the meaning of the word in the context of no confidence motion to signify a rejection of a no confidence motion on merits following due deliberations in a meeting convened and held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 15(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the resolution would go to show that there was voluntariness on the part of the requisitionists not to pursue the no confidence motion and the same cannot be equated with unsolicited or unauthorized intervention of an authority not contemplated in the scheme of the Act preventing adoption of a no confidence motion. More than six months have elapsed from the meeting that was held on 18.04.2011. More than six months have elapsed from the meeting that was held on 18.04.2011. In that view of the matter, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the no confidence motion had been lost or not has become purely an academic exercise and it is an established proposition of law that the Court shall not go into decide an academic question which is best left to be decided in a more appropriate case. 16. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. However, the members of the Gaon Panchayat would be at liberty to bring in a fresh no confidence motion against the respondent No. 8, if so advised, and if such a requisition is given, the President and all the functionaries under the Act, will take such steps as may be required under the provisions of the Act. The writ petition stands dispose of. Disposed off.