Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 92 (GAU)

Rama Kanta Dewri v. State of Assam

2013-02-07

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. All the writ petitions by and between the same parties touching the main issue, i.e. who is the Chief Executive Member (hereinafter referred to as CEM) of the Tiwa Autonomous Council (hereinafter referred to as TAC), have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Although various issues have been raised in the writ petitions, but the decision which now falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the direction of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2012 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1879/2012 which is reproduced below has been acted upon by the parties following the due procedure pursuant to which Shri Rama Kanta Dewri, petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1867/2011 and W.P. (C) No. 5598/2011, stated to have been elected as the CEM of the TAC. Heard Mr. K.D. Chetri, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. P.D. Nair, the learned Counsel appears for the respondent No. 5. The petitioner and the respondent No. 5 are claiming to enjoy support of majority of the Members, in the Tiwa Autonomous Council (TAC). 2. In pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 23.4.2012 in WP (C) No. 1879/2012, the writ petitioner has filed an additional affidavit on 2.5.2012, indicating her willingness to face the Vote of Confidence in the House. In the Misc. Case 1227/2012, the respondent No. 5 has also made averment willing to prove his majority, in a Vote of Confidence in the House of the TAC. 3. The rival parties appear to be in agreement that on 8.5.2012 the General Council of the TAC is scheduled to meet and on that date, it is suggested that the 2 rivals can prove their respective majority claim in the House in the General Council meeting of the TAC scheduled on 8.5.2012. 4. As it was alleged that 2 persons are trying to simultaneously function as the Principal Secretary of the TAC, in the Court's order of 23.4.2012, the Deputy Commissioner of Morigaon district was directed to ensure functioning of only one Principal Secretary in the TAC. 5. Mr. Nair, and Mr. Chetri submit that even now imbroglio persist in the functioning of Principal Secretary of the TAC. 5. Mr. Nair, and Mr. Chetri submit that even now imbroglio persist in the functioning of Principal Secretary of the TAC. In the above circumstances, bearing in mind the willingness expressed by the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 to prove their respective claim of majority in the House, the parties are directed to have a Vote of Confidence on 8.5.2012 to decide on the majority claim by the two rivals. In order to ensure a fair and peaceful proceeding of the TAC, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon will act as an Observer in the House. He will give a report to the Court on the outcome of the proceeding dated 8.5.2012. A copy of this order be handed over to Mr. H.K. Barman, the learned Government Advocate for communication to the Principal Secretary TAC and the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon. Additionally, the Registry would also communicate this order to the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon. 2. The grievance raised in the writ petitions are briefly stated below: W.P. (C) No. 1867/2011 3. This writ petition filed by Shri Rama Kanta Dewri relates to no-confidence motion that was brought against him vide notice dated 21.03.2011 and the impugned proceedings thereof dated 24.03.2011 and 29.03.2011 (Annexures-8 and 9) by which the petitioner was removed as CEM. Be it stated here that other aspirant for CEM, namely Smt. Rina Pator was the Chairman of the TAC at that point of time under whose presidentship the no-confidence motion was discussed and passed. W.P. (C) No. 2439/2011 4. By means of this writ petition filed by six petitioners who are the Executive Members of TAC, have challenged the resolution that was adopted in the special meeting convened on 29.03.2011 in which no-confidence motion brought against Shri Rama Kanta Dewri, CEM was discussed and passed by which also the petitioners had been removed from the office of the Executive Member, although there had been no notice regarding no-confidence motion against them. W.P. (C) No. 5513/2011 5. In this writ petition filed by 20 petitioners who are the elected members of TAC, have challenged the purported election of Smt. Rina Patar as the CEM of TAC to the replacement of Shri Rama Kanta Dewri. According to the petitioners, Shri Rama Kanta Dewri was illegally removed as the CEM. W.P. (C) No. 5513/2011 5. In this writ petition filed by 20 petitioners who are the elected members of TAC, have challenged the purported election of Smt. Rina Patar as the CEM of TAC to the replacement of Shri Rama Kanta Dewri. According to the petitioners, Shri Rama Kanta Dewri was illegally removed as the CEM. The challenge in the writ petition is also to the notification dated 24.10.2011 issued after about seven months of the impugned resolution dated 29.03.2011 notifying Smt. Rina Patar as the CEM of TAC. W.P. (C) No. 5534/2011 6. This writ petition has been filed by five petitioners alleging inaction on the part of the official respondents in not notifying the resolution of the General Council Meeting of TAC held on 08.07.2011 in which the Chairman and the Executive Members had been purportedly elected. W.P. (C) No. 5598/2011 7. This is yet another writ petition filed by Shri Rama Kanta Dewri challenging the aforementioned notification dated 24.10.2011 by which Smt. Rina Patar was notified to be the CEM of TAC. By the said writ petition the petitioner has also prayed for consequential action pursuant to the resolution adopted in the special General Meeting on 08.07.2011 in which he was purportedly elected as the CEM to the replacement of Smt. Rina Patar. In the said meeting Smt. Rina Patar who was purportedly elected as CEM in the meeting held on 29.03.2011 alongwith two other members were removed from their posts following no-confidence motion brought against them and it was also resolved that the earlier resolution adopted in the meetings held on 24.03.2011 and 29.03.2011 by which Shri Rama Kanta Dewri was removed was illegal and did not have the force of law and consequently Shri Rama Kanta Dewri would continue to function as the CEM. W.P. (C) No. 1340/2012 8. The challenge made in this writ petition filed by Shri Rama Kanta Dewri is the notification dated 15.03.2012 issued by the Govt. of Assam in the WPT & BC Department under the signature of Commissioner and Secretary directing the Principal Secretary of TAC to convene the General Council Meeting as per the provision of Tiwa Autonomous Council Act. W.P. (C) No. 1677/2012 9. of Assam in the WPT & BC Department under the signature of Commissioner and Secretary directing the Principal Secretary of TAC to convene the General Council Meeting as per the provision of Tiwa Autonomous Council Act. W.P. (C) No. 1677/2012 9. This writ petition filed by one Shri Dhani Ram Lara, an elected member of the General Council of TAC, is in respect of the meeting of the General Council held on 21.03.2011 preceded by the notice for the same issued on 17.03.2012. According to the petitioner, the notice and the meeting were illegal in which Shri Rama Kanta Dewri was elected as the CEM. A writ of mendamus has also been prayed for, for removal of the respondent No. 5, i.e. the Principal Secretary of the TAC. W.P. (C) No. 1879/2012 10. This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Rina Patar challenging the proceedings of the Special General Meeting of TAC held on 05.03.2012 and also for a declaration that she is the CEM of TAC pursuant to the resolution adopted in the aforementioned meeting held on 29.03.2011 which was also notified by the Govt. on 24.10.2011. In the said meeting dated 05.03.2012 the no-confidence motion that was brought against her for removal as CEM was discussed and passed. By another resolution adopted in the said meeting Shri Rama Kanta Dewri was elected as CEM. W.P. (C) No. 2518/2012 11. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner Smt. Rina Patar has put to challenge the resolution adopted in the General Council Meeting of TAC which was held pursuant to the above quoted order dated 03.05.2012 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1879/2012. By the said resolution adopted in the meeting it was conveyed that Shri Rama Kanta Dewri could prove the majority in his support as he had received 19 votes against only 1 vote received by Smt. Rina Patar. As noted above, the whole controversy now involved is as to whether the trust motion that was discussed in the meeting held on 08.05.2012 is legally valid or not. As noted above, the whole controversy now involved is as to whether the trust motion that was discussed in the meeting held on 08.05.2012 is legally valid or not. While it is the plea of Smt. Rina Patar that the meeting was convened illegally to prove the support of the majority members, it is the plea of Shri Rama Kanta Dewri that as per the direction of this Court dated 03.05.2012 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1879/2012 which has been referred to above, Smt. Rina Patar having failed to prove her majority, she is not entitled to question the proceeding of the meeting held on 08.05.2012. 12. I have heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel representing Smt. Rina Patar. I have also heard Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned State counsel as well as Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel representing Shri Rama Kanta Dewri. I have also perused the entire materials on record and have also considered the written brief alongwith the compilation that was produced by Mr. Mishra incorporating various documents and orders pertaining to the case. 13. According to Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned counsel representing Smt. Rina Patar, the meeting in which the majority support of the rival parties was to be considered was illegally convened. He submitted that it is the Principal Secretary of the Council who is competent to convene the meeting, but he was not allowed to do so. He submitted that everything was done by Shri Rama Kanta Dewri and he did not allow the procedure to be followed in such a matter. In Misc. Case No. 2527/2012 an allegation of forgery against Smt. Rina Patar in respect of the particular notification dated 25.04.2012 has been alleged. Mr. Mishra submitted that there was no attempt on the part of Smt. Rina Patar to commit any forgery. However, this aspect of the matter need not detain us as we are concerned with the main issue which is, as to whether the particular exercise directed to be carried out by this Court was carried out or not following the due procedure. 14. Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for Shri Rama Kanta Dewri, submitted that the particular exercise in which the rival parties were to prove their strength having been carried out as per the direction of this Court, there is no question of any interference with the same. 14. Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for Shri Rama Kanta Dewri, submitted that the particular exercise in which the rival parties were to prove their strength having been carried out as per the direction of this Court, there is no question of any interference with the same. Referring to the report of the Deputy Commissioner of the District who was present in the meeting as observer, he submitted that the said report would clearly show that the meeting was held strictly in accordance with the direction of this Court for which there was consensus by and between the parties and thus the outcome thereof is required to be respected to by the parties. 15. Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned State counsel also submitted that the meeting having been convened in accordance with the agreement by and between the parties which was also discussed before this Court as reflected in the above quoted order dated 03.05.2012, the defeated candidate namely Smt. Rina Patar cannot harp upon the technicalities so as to negate the mandate of the members of the TAC who exercised their democratic right. 16. As noted above, the particular course of action was directed by this Court having regard to the claim and counter claim in respect of the post of CEM. Significantly, the above quoted order dated 03.05.2012 was issued in the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1879/2012 filed by Smt. Rina Patar. When the writ petition was first taken up on 23.04.2012, this Court narrating the entire facts and recording the statements made by the rival parties, passed the following order. The petitioner challenges the resolution of No Confidence Motion adopted on 5.3.2012, in the special meeting of the General Council of the Tiwa Autonomous Council (TAC). Through the impugned resolution purportedly voted upon by 16 of the 29 elected members, the No Confidence Motion against the Chief Executive Member (writ petitioner) was passed. Consequently the respondent No. 5 was elected as the Chief Executive Member (CEM), of the TAC. 2. Mr. N. Dutta, the learned senior counsel challenges the legality of the proceeding of the special meeting of 5.3.2012, by referring to Section- 17(3) of the Tiwa Autonomous Council Act. He points out that the Principal-Secretary of the TAC was absent in the said meeting of 5.3.2012 and accordingly the resolution adopted therein being contrary to the statutory provision, can't be acted upon. 3. He points out that the Principal-Secretary of the TAC was absent in the said meeting of 5.3.2012 and accordingly the resolution adopted therein being contrary to the statutory provision, can't be acted upon. 3. The learned senior counsel submits that the earlier Principal-Secretary Shri Mukul Chandra Hazarika was removed on 17.3.2012 and one Shri PC Deka has been posted as the Principal-Secretary of the TAC. But Shri Hazarika, who cannot be the Principal-Secretary w.e.f. 17.3.2012, continues to function unauthorisedly as the Principal-Secretary of the TAC. 4. Mr. R. Mazumdar, appearing for the respondent No. 6 however points out that the writ petitioner is not functioning continuously as the CEM of the TAC since 29.3.2011 as is claimed. It is submitted that the petitioner Rina Pator has taken over charge as the CEM, in between only on 27.10.2011. The learned counsel further submits that the absence of the Principal-Secretary was deliberate to protect the petitioner and to thwart the proceeding of 5.3.2012. Consequently since the Principal-Secretary discharges only secretarial function without any vote and as only on the morning of the meeting i.e. 5.3.2012, the Principal-Secretary instead of attending to the special meeting, declared his intention to remain absent by citing an urgent summon from Dispur, the No Confidence resolution of 5.3.2012 can't be vitiated. Furthermore, he submits that on 19.4.2012, another meeting of the members of the TAC was held where 20 of the 29 elected members, have expressed their support through a confidence vote, in favour of the respondent No. 5. 5. From the averments made, it appears that this is the 5th case pertaining to No Confidence Motion for and against the writ petitioner/respondent No. 5 and with regard to functioning of the TAC. The earlier writ petitions which are still pending in the Court are (i) WP (C) No. 1867/2011 filed by Shri Rama Kanta Deori (respondent No. 5); (ii) WP (C) No. 5534/2011 filed by Shri Jiban Konwar (respondent No. 11); (iii) WP (C) No. 5598/2011 filed by Shri Dhaniram Lara (respondent No. 6); (iv) WP (C) No. 1557/2012 by filed by Shri Rama Kanta Deori (respondent No. 5); and (v)th i.e. WP (C) No. 1879/2012 (the current case) has been filed in respect of the No Confidence Motion held on 5.3.2012. 6. 6. Considering the above backdrop, it is apparent that two groups of the TAC members are trying to take over control in the Tiwa Autonomous Council. But since the legality of the No Confidence Resolution dated 5.3.2012 is under challenge on the ground of non-participation by the Principal-Secretary, let a notice returnable on 10.5.20123 be issued. 7. Mr. KD Chetri, the learned senior Govt. Advocate accepts notice for the respondents 1, 2 and 4. Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned counsel accepts notice for the respondent No. 6. Mr. G. Alam, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 5. Extra copies be furnished to all the three Advocates and their names be reflected in the cause list. 8. Petitioner to ensure service on the remaining respondents, by registered post and additionally on 'Dasti' basis, by taking appropriate endorsement of the 'Dasti' notice(s), from the Court's Registry. 9. As the writ petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5 are claiming to enjoy majority support in the Tiwa Autonomous Council and strength is to prove in the floor of the house, on query posed by the Court, Mr. Dutta and Mr. Alam have indicated that their clients are prepared to prove majority in the house in a meeting, where the Principal-Secretary of the TAC is going to be present. In view of their positive response, the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 are granted 7 days time, to file a short affidavit each, confirming their willingness to face a vote of confidence in the house, in accordance with Section- 17 of the Tiwa Autonomous Council Act. Therefore although the notice is made returnable on 10.5.2012, the affidavit of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 should be filed, on or before 30.4.2012. 10. In the meantime, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon will ensure functioning of only one Principal-Secretary of the Tiwa Autonomous Council, as it is alleged that two persons, both claiming to be the Principal-Secretary, are trying to function as the Principal-Secretary of the TAC. 17. From the above what is seen is that both the parties agreed to prove majority in the house in a meeting. Accordingly both the parties were granted time to file short affidavit confirming their willingness to face the vote of confidence in the house in accordance with Section 17 of the Tiwa Autonomous Council Act. 17. From the above what is seen is that both the parties agreed to prove majority in the house in a meeting. Accordingly both the parties were granted time to file short affidavit confirming their willingness to face the vote of confidence in the house in accordance with Section 17 of the Tiwa Autonomous Council Act. Pursuant to the said order, both the parties expressed their willingness. While Smt. Rina Patar filed an affidavit on 02.05.2012 indicating her willingness to face the vote of confidence in the house, Shri Rama Kanta Dewri also expressed his willingness to face the vote of confidence in Misc. case No. 1227/2012 which has been recorded in the above quoted order dated 03.05.2012. 18. On perusal of the order dated 03.05.2012, it is absolutely clear that this Court having regard to the willingness expressed by the parties to prove their respective claim of majority in the house, issued direction to face the vote of confidence on 08.05.2012. To ensure peaceful proceeding of TAC, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon was directed to act as an observer in the house with further direction to furnish report on the outcome of the proceeding. As reflected in the said order dated 03.05.2012, not only there was an agreement by and between the parties to prove their respective majority claim in the floor of the house, but they also agreed to do so in the General Council Meeting of TAC which was scheduled to be held on 08.05.2012. Thus, the first condition of agreement was that the parties would prove their respective majority claim in the house, in the General Council Meeting of TAC was scheduled to be held on 08.05.2012. As regards simultaneous functioning of two Principal Secretaries of TAC, the Deputy Commissioner was to ensure the functioning of only one Principal Secretary in TAC. However, it was recorded that even on the date of the order on 03.05.2012, the imbroglio still persisted in the functioning of the Principal Secretary of TAC. 19. It was in the aforesaid circumstances, the direction was issued recording willingness expressed by the parties to prove their respective majority in the house. However, it was recorded that even on the date of the order on 03.05.2012, the imbroglio still persisted in the functioning of the Principal Secretary of TAC. 19. It was in the aforesaid circumstances, the direction was issued recording willingness expressed by the parties to prove their respective majority in the house. It was also provided that for peaceful proceeding of the vote of confidence in the meeting already scheduled to be held on 08.05.2012, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon would act as an observer in the house and shall submit a report to the Court on the outcome of the proceeding. Pursuant to the proceeding held on 08.05.2012, one Shri P.C. Deka, ACS, Principal Secretary, TAC passed notice dated 04.05.2012 notifying holding of General Council Meeting of TAC to prove the respective claim of majority in favour of each of the claimants. Interestingly by the said notice, he notified the venue as Pobitara Hut (near Circuit house, Morigaon) and not the floor of the house as was observed by this Court in the order dated 03.05.2012. Further the same Principal Secretary, TAC issued another letter dated 07.05.2012 to the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon conveying his inability to convene and attend the meeting on 08.05.2012 on the ground of not being able to serve the letters inviting the members of the Council to attend the meeting due to non-cooperation of the official staff including the Grade-IV staff of the Council. 20. Irrespective of the above position adopted by Shri P.C. Deka, ACS, Principal Secretary, TAC, the meeting was held on 08.05.2012. Shri Rama Kanta Dewri received 19 votes as against the single vote received by Smt. Rina Patar. Be it stated here that there are 29 elected members in the Council out of which 21 members participated in the proceeding held on 08.05.2012. After counting the votes, it was found that 19 members had cast votes in favour of Shri Rama Kanta Dewri and only one in favour of Smt. Rina Patar who alongwith 7 others remained absent in the meeting. 21. Pursuant to the aforesaid exercise as per the direction of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon has submitted his report to this Court vide letter dated 08.05.2012 a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 2518/2012 filed by Smt. Rina Patar. For a ready reference, the said letter is quoted below. Pursuant to the aforesaid exercise as per the direction of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon has submitted his report to this Court vide letter dated 08.05.2012 a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 2518/2012 filed by Smt. Rina Patar. For a ready reference, the said letter is quoted below. GOVT. OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MORIGAON No. MDP (TAC), 8/2011/205 Dated Morigaon the 8th May, 2012 To, The Registrar Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Guwahati (Assam) Sub: Report regarding meeting held on 8.5.2012 in respect of Vote of Confidence in Tiwa Autonomous council in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court order dated 03.05.2012 in W.P. (C) No. 1879/2012. Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to inform you that in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court order dated 03.05.2012 in W.P. (C) No. 1879/2012 wherein the undersigned was directed to remain present in the aforesaid meeting as an Observer, the self remained present in the said meeting held on 08.05.2012 in the Tiwa Autonomous Council Hall, Morigaon at 11 A.M. The outcome of the proceedings are as follows. 1) Shri Dhani Ram Lara, Member of Tiwa autonomous council presided over the proceeding. 2) As per Hon'ble High Court direction, Vote of Confidence proceedings were conducted in peaceful manner. 3) There are total 30 elected members of the Council. Out of which, one Shri Arun Manta has already passed away. Out of remaining 29 elected members, total 21 Members were present in the House 20 members excluding the Presiding Officer participated in the Vote of Confidence proceeding through Secret Ballot. 4) After counting of vote, it is found that 19 (nineteen) members cast votes in support of Shri Rama Kanta Deori and 1 (one) of Smt. Rina Patar. Therefore, Shri Rama Kanta claimed majority support of the House. List of Members is enclosed at Annexure-A. 5) Smt. Rina Patar and other 7 members were found absent in the proceeding. It may kindly be noted that Smt. Rina Patar has submitted a petition to the undersigned on 07.05.2012 stating that Shri Rama Kanta Deori has unauthorisedly convened the meeting on 08.05.2012 as Chief Executive Member even though Smt. Rina Patar has been notified as Chief Executive Member as per Gazette Notification No. TAD/BC/260/2011/Pt./1 dated Dispur 24th October, 2011. It may kindly be noted that Smt. Rina Patar has submitted a petition to the undersigned on 07.05.2012 stating that Shri Rama Kanta Deori has unauthorisedly convened the meeting on 08.05.2012 as Chief Executive Member even though Smt. Rina Patar has been notified as Chief Executive Member as per Gazette Notification No. TAD/BC/260/2011/Pt./1 dated Dispur 24th October, 2011. Therefore she submitted that functioning of the meeting dated 08.05.2012 has already been vitiated due to unauthorised influence of Shri Rama Kanta Dewri. Moreover, she stated that Shri Rama Kanta Dewri unilaterally decided the Agenda of the meeting causing prejudice to her. She further submitted that the Principal Secretary of the Council Shri P.C. Deka was forcibly prevented and obstructed by Shri Rama Kanta Dewri from issuing notice of the said meeting. Copy of the petition submitted by Smt. Rina Patar is enclosed at Annexure-B. 6) Shri P.C. Deka, Principal Secretary of Tiwa Autonomous Council has also submitted similar petition to the under signed. Copy of the petition submitted by Shri P.C. Deka is enclosed at Annexure-C. 7) Hon'ble High Court had directed the undersigned to ensure functioning of only one Principal Secretary vide order dated 23.04.2012 in W.P. (C) No. 1879/2012. In pursuance of said order, I extended Police and Magisterial support to Shri P.C. Deka who was appointed by the Govt. vide Notification No. TAD/BC/405/2005/114 dated 07.03.2012. But as informed by Shri P.c. Deka, he is still not being allowed to function and discharge his duty as Principal Secretary of the Council. As per Section 17(3) of the lalung (Tiwa) Autonomous Council Act, 1995 the Principal Secretary shall be present and take part in the discussion of all the meetings of the General Council or Executive Council or any Committee of the General Council and may, with the consent of the Chief Executive Council or any other person presiding over such meeting for the time being, as the case may be, at any time make a statement or give explanation of the facts and circumstances but shall not be entitled to vote in any such meeting. In view of the above, the Hon'ble High Court may take a view on appropriateness of procedural aspects of convention of the meeting held on 08.05.2012 and its outcome. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon 22. In view of the above, the Hon'ble High Court may take a view on appropriateness of procedural aspects of convention of the meeting held on 08.05.2012 and its outcome. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon 22. On perusal of the said letter, what is found is that the meeting was convened as was scheduled earlier and as per agreement the rival parties were to prove their majority in the floor of the house in which Shri Rama Kanta Dewri succeeded. For the reasons best known to her, Smt. Rina Patar did not attend the meeting although she had conveyed agreement for the same before this Court. She is now estopped from raising the plea of procedural irregularity in conducting the meeting. It was known to her that the General Council Meeting of TAC as recorded in the above quoted order dated 03.05.2012, was scheduled to be held on 08.05.2012 and that she was required to prove her majority in the house on that day. While Shri Rama Kanta Dewri discharged his part of obligation, Smt. Rina Patar failed to discharge the same by wilfully abstaining from the meeting. She has now debarred from claiming that there was procedural irregularity in conducting the same. 23. As per the provisions of Tiwa Autonomous Council Act, the elected members of the General Council are required to elect one of the members as the CEM. The Act further provides for removal of the CEM through the process of adopting a resolution by majority of the total number of elected members at a Special Meeting of the General Council called for the purpose upon a requisition made in writing by not less than 1/3 of the members of the General Council. When the office of the CEM falls vacant, same shall be filled up by the General Council, by electing a Member thereof in the manner prescribed for the election of the CEM. Section 13 of the Act provides that the meeting of the General Council shall be held at the Headquarter of the TAC. 24. In the instant case, the particular Principal Secretary of the Council wanted to hold the meeting at Pobitara Hut, a private place near the Circuit house, Morigaon and not in the floor of the house. Section 13 of the Act provides that the meeting of the General Council shall be held at the Headquarter of the TAC. 24. In the instant case, the particular Principal Secretary of the Council wanted to hold the meeting at Pobitara Hut, a private place near the Circuit house, Morigaon and not in the floor of the house. Taking the plea of non-cooperation on the part of the employees of the Council, he expressed his inability to hold the meeting on 08.05.2012 in spite of the fact that both the parties had agreed before this Court to prove their respective majority in the floor of the house on that day. As per the direction of this Court, the meeting was duly convened in which the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon participated as an observer and thereafter submitted his report referred to above. 25. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5 in W.P. (C) No. 2518/2012, i.e. Shri Rama Kanta Dewri, it has been stated about the agreement to prove the respective strength in the floor of the house in the meeting already scheduled to be held on 08.05.2012. It is on record that the General Council Meeting held on 08.05.2012 was earlier notified by Shri Rama Kanta Dewri in his capacity as CEM. The notice that was issued by the purported Principal Secretary of TAC notifying the meeting on 08.05.2012 was in contravention of the provision of the Act and also in terms of the above quoted order of this Court dated 03.05.2012. The meeting was to be convened at the Headquarter of the Council and the majority was to be proved in the floor of the house. Although an allegation has been made by Smt. Rina Patar in her writ petition that the respondent No. 5, i.e. Shri Rama Kanta Dewri, had prevented the Principal Secretary to convene the meeting at the place other than the Headquarter, but there is nothing on record to prove the same. The very fact that the meeting was attended by majority of the members (20 out of 29) including the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon and the two Principal Secretaries of TAC would go to show that nothing had prevented Smt. Rina Patar to attend the said meeting. The very fact that the meeting was attended by majority of the members (20 out of 29) including the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon and the two Principal Secretaries of TAC would go to show that nothing had prevented Smt. Rina Patar to attend the said meeting. She had no reason to follow the letter of the Principal Secretary after having agreed to participate in the proceeding scheduled to be held on 08.05.2012 by furnishing undertaking before this Court. 26. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, i.e. Shri Rama Kanta Dewri, it has been stated that the meeting was attended by Shri P.C. Deka, one of the Principal Secretaries of TAC. In this connection, the respondent No. 5 has also annexed the photographs of the meeting showing presence of the Principal Secretary. Be that as it may, this Court had appointed the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon as the observer of the meeting who duly attended the meeting and submitted the above quoted report in which he has categorically stated that the meeting was convened as per the direction of this Court and that the proceedings were conducted in peaceful manner. As recorded in the report, Smt. Rina Patar had submitted a petition to him on 07.05.2012 stating about purported unauthorised convening of the meeting on 08.05.2012 by Shri Rama Kanta Dewri. Smt. Rina Patar having agreed to show her strength on the floor of the house on 08.05.2012 on which date the General Council Meeting was already fixed could not have and ought not have taken recourse to the plea as was raised by her said letter dated 07.05.2012. 27. For all the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in the plea of the petitioner, namely Smt. Rina Patar that the meeting dated 08.05.2012 was not held as per the procedure. She herself having agreed before this Court to participate in the meeting to show her strength in the floor of the house on 08.05.2012 on which date the General Council Meeting had already been convened, could not have deviated from her said undertaking so as to take another plea for not participating in the said proceeding. She herself having agreed before this Court to participate in the meeting to show her strength in the floor of the house on 08.05.2012 on which date the General Council Meeting had already been convened, could not have deviated from her said undertaking so as to take another plea for not participating in the said proceeding. On the other hand, Shri Rama Kanta Dewri having proved his strength in the floor of the house in the ratio of 19:1 out of the total strength of the house consisting of 29 members, he is undoubtedly the elected CEM in which capacity he will continue to function till such time he is removed from the seat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 28. Since the main issue which is regarding election of the CEM of TAC stands answered by this judgment and order in reference to the above quoted order dated 03.05.2012 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1879/2012 and also consequential meeting dated 08.05.2012 and the proceedings thereof, the contentions raised in the other writ petitions which have also not been pressed, are inconsequential. The final outcome of the impugned resolution adopted in the meeting dated 08.05.2012 which was held pursuant to the above quoted order of this Court dated 03.05.2012 would hold the field. All the writ petitions are answered in the above manner and stand disposed of by this common judgment and order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.