Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 81 (TRI)

Md. Hachan Ali v. State of Tripura

2014-02-13

DEEPAK GUPTA, U.B.SAHA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta; C.J.:- These two appeals are being disposed of by one judgment since common questions of law and fact are involved and both the appeals arise out of one judgment passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in two writ petitions. The undisputed facts of the case are that elections to the Noorpur Gram Panchayat were held in the year 2009. The appellants Lechu Miah and Md. Hachan Ali were candidates of the Indian National Congress (for short INC) in the said elections. They were both elected as members of the Gram Panchayat, Noorpur. Md. Kabir Hussain (Respondent No. 10), Md. Ranu Miah (Respondent No. 11), Md. Safik Ali (Respondent No. 12) and Mustt. Asma Begum (Respondent No. 13) were also elected as members of the gram panchayat as INC candidates. Md. Mahammad Ali (Respondent No. 7), Smti. Tara Kumari Singha (Respondent No. 8) and Smti Rajia Begum (Respondent No. 9) were elected as the representatives of the rival political party. Thereafter Md. Kabir Hussain and Md. Ranu Miah were elected as Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan of the Panchayat. 2. Both the appellants and respondents 7, 8 and 9 issued notice under Section 23(2) of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993 moving a no confidence motion against the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan on 14.05.2010. This notice was presented before the District Panchayat Officer, respondent No. 3 who issued a letter on 18.05.2010 directing that a special meeting of the Noorpur Gram Panchayat be held on 08.06.2010 at 10.30 a.m. in the office of the Noorpur Gram Panchayat for consideration of this motion. He also authorized respondent No. 5, Sri Debasish Datta Roy, Panchayat Extension Officer to preside over the meeting. In the said meeting, the no confidence motion was put to vote and both the appellants and respondents 7 to 9 voted in favour of the motion. The motion was carried and respondents 10 and 11 were unseated from the post of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioners who were elected as members of the Noorpur Gram Panchayat as candidates of the INC voted against respondents 10 and 11 who also belonged to their party i.e. INC. Thereafter proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for disqualifying them in terms of Section 16of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereafter proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for disqualifying them in terms of Section 16of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent No. 4 vide his order dated 21.07.2010 held that the petitioners disobeyed the whip issued to them by their party and, therefore, disqualified them. The orders disqualifying the petitioners were challenged by the petitioners Md. Hachan Ali and Lechu Miah in Writ Petition No. 318 of 2010 and Writ Petition No. 317 of 2010. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by a common judgment. Hence these appeals. 4. The first contention of Sri N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioners is that in terms of Section 16 of the Act the whip has to be issued by a person or authority authorized by the political party in this behalf. In the present case, he submits that Md. Badruzzaman, respondent No. 6 who issued the whip was not duly authorized. In the alternative, he submits that only Shri Surajit Dutta was authorized to issue the whip and he could not have further delegated the power vested in him to Md. Badruzzaman. He, therefore, submits that Rule 27 of the Tripura Panchayats (Administration) Rules, 1994 has been violated. The next submission of Shri N. Das is that the respondent No. 5 did not follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 27 and did not seek any clarification from the appellant-writ petitioners. He, therefore, submits that Rule 27 has been violated and the impugned action is, therefore, illegal. It is also submitted that the whip was never served upon the petitioners. He also submits that not only was the whip not served upon the petitioners but even the other 4(four) persons who belonged to the Congress Party did not produce the whip(s) allegedly received by them. He also raises an issue that if the letter containing the whip was returned undelivered by the postal authority why was the same was opened and not kept sealed. His last submission is that the respondent No. 4 did not read out the whip during the meeting in which no confidence motion was passed and according to him, Rule 5 of the Tripura Panchayats (Administration) Rules, 1994 does not permit the respondent No. 5 to read out the whip. 5. On the other hand, Ms. A. Sarma Lodh, learned Addl. 5. On the other hand, Ms. A. Sarma Lodh, learned Addl. G. A for the State has defended the action of the officials and submitted that the entire action is legal and proper. 6. Sri Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the contesting private respondents belonged to the INC submits that there is ample proof on record to show that the whip was served. He further urges that once a person disobeys the whip, the disqualification is automatic and nothing more is required to be done. According to him, no declaration is required to be issued in this regard. 7. To appreciate the rival contention of the parties, it would be necessary to refer to Section 16 of the Act and Rule 27 of the Tripura Panchayats (Election of office Bearers) Rules, 1994 which read as follows: SECTION-16. 16.(1) A member of a Gram Panchayat belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the Gram Panchayat-- (a) if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party; or (b) if he votes or abstains from voting in the Gram Panchayat contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person or authority authorized by it in this behalf, without obtaining in either case, the prior written permission of such political party, persons or authority and such voting or abstention has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority within thirty days from the date of such voting or abstention. RULE-27. 27. Procedure to deal with question regarding disqualification on ground of defection: (1) In any meeting of a Gram Panchayat, or a Panchayat Samiti or a Zilla Parishad, where vote is taken for election or for any other purpose, the Presiding Officer shall, if his attention is drawn that any member has voted or abstained from voting contrary to the direction of the political party to which he belongs and thereby has earned disqualification under Section 16, or Section 76, or Section-128, record the facts in the Remarks Column of the record of proceedings of the meeting, obtain clarification from such member and then refer the question to the Block Development Officer or, as the case may be, the district Magistrate having jurisdiction for decision in Form 6A, or 12A or 17A as the case may be. (2) If the Gram Panchayat or a Panchayat Samity or a Zilla Parishad received a written information from a political party or from a member that the member has voluntarily given up the membership of the party or the member having been elected otherwise then as a member of political party has joined the political party, the Pradhan or Upa Pradhan in case of Gram Panchayat, the Chairman or Vice chairman in case of Panchayat Samiti or Sbhadhi pati or Sahakari Sabhadhipati in case of Zilla Parishad shall refer the question to the Block Development Officer or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate to decide whether such member has earned disqualification under Section 16, or Section 76, or Section 128 in Form 6A, 12A or 17A as the case may be. (3) Every such member who is alleged to have earned disqualification by reason of voting or abstained from voting contrary to the direction of his political party, may submit letter or prior permission or condonation to the Block Development Officer or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate having jurisdiction within thirty days from the date of voting and such authority shall take up the question of disqualification only after expiry of the said period of thirty days and decide the same within fifteen days from the expiry of the said period of thirty days. (4) If the authority, as aforesaid, is satisfied on the basis of the report of the Presiding Officer and after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary that any such member has become disqualified under Section 16 or, as the case may be, Section 76 of Section 128, record his decision, communicate it to the Gram Panchayat concerned, or as the case may be, the Panchayat Samiti or the Zilla Parishad and make declaration in Form 6B, or 12B, or 17B as the case may be, that the member has ceased to be the member of that Gram Panchayat or, as the case may be, the Panchayat Samity or the Zilla Parishad. At the outset it may be noticed that these provisions of the Act and the Rules are almost identical to the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has noted that the 10th Schedule was appended to the Constitution with a view to combat the evil of political defection. At the outset it may be noticed that these provisions of the Act and the Rules are almost identical to the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has noted that the 10th Schedule was appended to the Constitution with a view to combat the evil of political defection. In our view it is not necessary to go into the purpose of the Act since that is not the issue raised in the present case. 8. A bare perusal of Section 16(1) of the Act makes it clear that if a member of the Gram Panchayat belonging to political party voluntarily gives up his membership of the said political party he shall be disqualified. Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 16 further provides that if such a member votes or abstains from voting in the Gram Panchayat contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs, then also he shall be disqualified unless he had voted against the direction with the prior permission in writing of the political party or the political party may condone his act within 30(thirty) days from the casting of such vote or abstention therefrom. The explanation reads that a member of the Gram Panchayat shall be deemed to belong to the political party by which he was set up as a candidate. 9. As far as voluntarily giving up the membership of a political party is concerned, as soon as a person voluntarily resigns from his party he is disqualified from continuing as a member of the Gram Panchayat. In case of disobedience of a direction (commonly referred to as a whip) the member again entails the penalty of disqualification but in such a case he can show that he is not disqualified either by producing permission in writing whereby he was permitted to vote against the whip or abstain from the vote or he can show that the political party within 30(thirty) days of the voting has condoned his action. 10. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the very wide proposition canvassed by Sri Somik Deb that once a member of the Gram Panchayat vote against his party he is automatically disqualified and no further action is required. 10. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the very wide proposition canvassed by Sri Somik Deb that once a member of the Gram Panchayat vote against his party he is automatically disqualified and no further action is required. Both under Clause (a) and (b), circumstances may arise where the person who is sought to be disqualified raises certain fundamental issues which would prevent him from being disqualified. To give an example under Clause (a), the member can say that he did not voluntarily give up his membership but was forced to resign. Similarly, under Clause (b), the member may say, like in the present case that the whip was never served upon him; that he was never informed about such whip; that the whip was not issued by the political party or a person authorized by it; that he had obtained the prior permission in writing from the party to abstain from or voting against the motion. He can also plead that the political party has condoned his fault within 30(thirty) days of the voting. If such a question is raised, then the question that will arise is whether the concerned member has become subject to disqualification under Section 16 or not. In terms of Section 16(3), the said question will have to be referred to the Block Development Officer having jurisdiction over the concerned Gram Panchayat. 11. We shall now deal with the contentions raised by Mr. N. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. His first contention is that the INC had not issued any whip. The private respondents have with their reply annexed a copy of a memorandum issued on 16th May, 2010 by Sri V. Narayanasamy, General Secretary of the All India Congress Committee which reads as follows: Memorandum President, Tripura Pradesh Congress Committee has been authorized by the all India Congress Committee to issue "WHIP" under section 16 of Tripura Panchayat Act, 1993 and he is further authorized to authorize any member of INC to issue "WHIP" under section 16 of Tripura Panchayat Act, 1993. This memorandum authorises the President of the Tripura Pradesh Congress Committee to issue a whip under Section 16 of the Act and the President has further been authorized to delegate such power to any member of the INC to issue a whip. 12. This memorandum authorises the President of the Tripura Pradesh Congress Committee to issue a whip under Section 16 of the Act and the President has further been authorized to delegate such power to any member of the INC to issue a whip. 12. Sri N. Das contends that Section 16 does not empower the political party to further delegate such power. We are not at all impressed by this argument. A political party is at best a juristic person. Somebody has to act on behalf of the political party. The General Secretary or Office Bearers of any political party cannot be expected to deal with such matters throughout the length and breadth of the country. Section 16 of the Act clearly provides that any person or authority authorized by the political party can issue such a whip. The whip can, therefore, be issued to any person authorized by name or by an authority authorized by designation. The General Secretary of the INC authorised Sri Surajit Dutta, President of the Tripura Pradesh Congress Committee as an authority to issue a whip. The President of the Tripura Pradesh Congress Committee was further authorized to authorize any member of the INC to issue a whip. 13. We are unable to agree with Sri N. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner that such sub-delegation is not allowed. Basically the dispute with regard to disqualification is between political party and the member who has violated the whip issued by the party on whose ticket he was elected. The State has no role to play. The member can manfully accept that due to certain reasons he has violated the whip issued by the party and then he would be disqualified but is not prohibited from again contesting the election. There is no prohibition in Section 16 of the Act that the political party is bound to authorize only one person to issue the whip. We also see no prohibition in the section against further delegation of such authority. Therefore, the first contention raised by Sri Das is rejected. We are clearly of the opinion that Sri Surajit Dutta was himself authorized to issue a whip and further that he could have authorized Md. Badruzzaman to issue a whip. 14. The next contention raised by Sri Das is that the whips appear to be ante dated. Therefore, the first contention raised by Sri Das is rejected. We are clearly of the opinion that Sri Surajit Dutta was himself authorized to issue a whip and further that he could have authorized Md. Badruzzaman to issue a whip. 14. The next contention raised by Sri Das is that the whips appear to be ante dated. He submits that the whip issued by Sri Surajit Dutta is dated 17th May, 2010 and is stated to be counter signed by Md. Badruzzaman on the same date. In the said whip instead of words Tripura Panchayats Act, the words Tripura Panchayat Raj Act have been used. The whip issued by Md. Badruzzaman to all the 6(six) members of the Congress party is in Bangla and signed by Md. Badruzzaman. However, the whip which has been produced from the official file clearly bears the date 24/05/2010 under the signature of Md. Badruzzaman. The appellants have also placed a copy of the whip issued by Md. Badruzzaman and it is contended that the date is 14.05.2010. On this basis it is urged that if Sri Surajit Dutta had authorized Md. Badruzzaman only on 17.05.2010 how could he have issued the whip on 14.05.2010. It is also contended that if the whip issued by Md. Badruzzaman was dated 24.05.2010 then the stand of the State that it was received in the office of the respondent No. 3 on 19.05.2010 is false. It is thus contended that no whip was issued or served. Further according to Sri Das no whip by registered post was served upon the petitioners and no whip was read out by the Presiding Officer on 8th June, 2009 and they first came to know about the whip only on 9th June, 2009. 15. After going through the documents especially the original file we are clearly of the view that the whip was issued by Md. Badruzzaman only on 24.5.2010 and not on 19.5.2010 or 14.5.2010. Sri Somik Deb has drawn our attention to another whip which was sent to the BDO on 24.05.2010 but we are not concerned with the same. Here, we may refer to the stand of the respondent No. 3, the District Panchayat Officer which reads as follows: ** Vide letter No. F. (2)/DPO/N/KLS/ELEC/2010-11 dated 28.05.2010, the two Nos. Sri Somik Deb has drawn our attention to another whip which was sent to the BDO on 24.05.2010 but we are not concerned with the same. Here, we may refer to the stand of the respondent No. 3, the District Panchayat Officer which reads as follows: ** Vide letter No. F. (2)/DPO/N/KLS/ELEC/2010-11 dated 28.05.2010, the two Nos. Whip that are sent to the Presiding Officer Sri Debasish Datta Roy, received by me on 19.05.2010 and accordingly entered in the entry Register on 20.05.2010 vide No. 2223. Copy of both the Whips and copy of Register are enclosed herewith. Mentionable here that both the Whips were together and as such no separate receive No. gave and no receive number. The petitioners had asked for information under the Right to Information Act from the respondent No. 3, District Panchayat Officer as to on which date he had received the whips. He replied that he had received both the whips on 19th May, 2010 and entry was made in the dairy register on 20th May, 2010. On 12.12.2013 we had called for the records of the case and after perusing the records we passed the following detailed order: 18.12.2013 Pursuant to our order dated 12.12.2013, Ms. A.S. Lodh, has produced certain records before us including the register of correspondence received in the office of the District Panchayat Officer, North Tripura, w.e.f. 01.12.2008 till 04.02.2011. As per entry No. 2223 dated 20.05.2010 one communication was received from Sri Surajit Dutta, President, Tripura Pradesh Congress, dated 17.05.2010. In the subject it is only stated that Tripura Pradesh Congress Committee and it is diarised on 20.05.2010. In the response to the application filed by one of the petitioners for information under RTI Act, Sri GR Das, the then District Panchayat Officer, North Tripura, Kailasahar has stated as follows:- Vide letter No. F. (2)/DPO/N/KLS/ELEC/2010-11 dated 28/5/2010, the two Nos. Whip that are sent to the Presiding Officer Sri Debasish Datta Roy, received by me on 19.5.2010 and accordingly entered in the entry Register on 20.5.2010 vide No. 2223. Copy of both the whips and copy of Register are enclosed herewith. Mentionable here that both the whips were together and as such no separate receive No. gave and no receive number. Ms. Copy of both the whips and copy of Register are enclosed herewith. Mentionable here that both the whips were together and as such no separate receive No. gave and no receive number. Ms. A.S. Lodh, states that she was orally informed by Sri G.R. Das, that in fact he had received the copy of communication dated 17.05.2010 sent by Sri Surajit Dutta, along with a whip and since both the documents were received together, as such, no receipt number was given separately. The second document is the whip actually issued by Md. Badruzzaman. We have gone through the various copies of the whips which have been place on record and find that the same appear to be dated 24.05.2011. Sri Somik Deb, has also handed over to us another copy of the whip which bears the original receipt of the office of the Block Development Officer, respondent No. 4, which is dated 24.05.2010. We have been informed at the bar that neither in the act nor in the rule there is any provision which states that the whip is to be communicated to any particular officer. Ld. Counsel for the parties submit that the act and rules are silent as to which official the whip issued under Section 16 has to be communicated to. Obviously then it can be communicated to the Returning Officer or any other officer who is in-charge of the elections. Under section 16(6) the disqualification takes place from the date of decision of the Block Development Officer. However, the Block Development Officer is not the in-charge of the elections. The elections are held under the District Panchayat Officer who may appoint some other Returning Officer and in this case the Returning Officer was the Extension Officer. In this circumstance the whip should have communicated either to the District Panchayat Officer or the Extension Officer. Therefore, the records of both the District Panchayat Officer and the Extension Officer be produced before the Court on the next date. These records shall include the records of receipt of communication; the noting sheet on which such communications dealt with; the orders passed as to how these whips/communications are to be dealt with. The entire record must be produced before us on the next date. We also find an ambiguity in the reply given by Mr. These records shall include the records of receipt of communication; the noting sheet on which such communications dealt with; the orders passed as to how these whips/communications are to be dealt with. The entire record must be produced before us on the next date. We also find an ambiguity in the reply given by Mr. G.R. Das, inasmuch as, if the whip was issued on 24.05.2011 the same could not have been received on 19.05.2011 or 20.05.2011 We, therefore, direct Mr. G.R. Das who is presently posted as A.D.M., Dhalai District, to remain present on the next date. The officer serving as District Panchayat Officer and Extension Officer as on date shall also remain on the next date along with the complete record. Obviously the original whip(s) received in this office shall also be produced in the Court on the next date. List the matter on 09.01.2014. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties within 2(two) days. 16. On 09.01.2014 Sri Das was present and the record was produced before us. In the receipt register of the office of the respondent No. 3, District Panchayat Officer only one document is entered at Sl. No. 2223. In the next column it is mentioned that this is a document dated 17th May, 2010 sent by Sri Surajit Dutta, President of the Tripura Pradesh Congress Committee. The letter of Sri Surajit Dutta is only a letter of authorisation and it does not contain any noting that the whip of Md. Badruzzaman is enclosed. There is no mention of the whip of Md. Badruzzaman in the diary/receipt register. As observed by us the whip appears to be signed on 24th May, 2010. If the whip was signed on 24.5.2010 then how could Mr. G.R. Das the District Panchayat Officer have received the said whip on 19-20th May, 2010. 17. On 9th January, 2014 when we asked Mr. G.R. Das how he had dealt with the whip on the file, he stated that in all probability there was no noting on any file. We had therefore, asked Sri G.R. Das to be present on 30th January, 2014 along with the noting portion of the file. On 30th January, 2014 Sri G.R. Das stated that he had not maintained any noting portion on the file. 18. We had therefore, asked Sri G.R. Das to be present on 30th January, 2014 along with the noting portion of the file. On 30th January, 2014 Sri G.R. Das stated that he had not maintained any noting portion on the file. 18. We are constrained to observe that this shows a shocking state of affairs, where a senior officer has dealt with important notices like no confidence motions against the duly elected Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan in such a casual and cavalier fashion. We have seen the file produced before us. It contains no noting sheet. The no confidence motions were received by respondent No. 3 on 14.05.2010 at 10.55 a.m. and 10.57 a.m. respectively. There is an endorsement on the notices in this behalf. We are clearly of the view that thereafter these notices should have been placed on a file and a noting file should have been started mentioning that such no confidence motion had been received and the District Panchayat Officer had decided to take action on the notice. What we find is that on 18.05.2010 a letter was sent to the Block Development Officer, Gournagar enclosing therewith 20(twenty) notices to all the members of the Gram Panchayat, Noorpur. The notices are under Section 23(1) of the Act for removal of the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan. All the members of the Gram Panchayat were directed to attend the meeting fixed on 08.06.2010 at 10.30 a.m. in the office of the Noorpur Gram Panchayat. Before issuing such notices the District Panchayat Officer should have made a noting on the file that the notice was in order, signed by the requisite number of people and confirmed to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. Only after coming to this prima facie opinion could he have issued notice. 19. Thereafter, there is an order on file dated 22nd May, 2010 whereby the respondent No. 5 Sri Debasish Datta Roy was authorized to preside over the meeting. There is no noting in file even with regard to this order. Without making any noting on the file, the respondent No. 3 thereafter sent a communication to the Officer-in-charge, Kailashahar Police Station on 22nd May, 2010 directing him to deploy adequate police personnel required for maintaining law and order during the period of meeting on the no confidence motion. There is no noting in file even with regard to this order. Without making any noting on the file, the respondent No. 3 thereafter sent a communication to the Officer-in-charge, Kailashahar Police Station on 22nd May, 2010 directing him to deploy adequate police personnel required for maintaining law and order during the period of meeting on the no confidence motion. Did the respondent No. 3 apprehend any breach of peace and if so on what basis? There is no material on record to show as to on what basis he made the request for deployment of Police force. On 22nd May, 2010 Sri G.R. Das, the District Panchayat Officer sent a letter to Shri Debasish Datta Roy, Panchayat Extension Officer enclosing the two notices but no whip was enclosed. Thereafter, there is the authorization issued by Sri Surajit Dutta which has been diarised at Sl. No. 2223 on 20th May, 2010. Then there is the whip allegedly issued by Md. Badruzzaman but the same is dated 24th May, 2010. On 28th May, 2010 Sri Das sent the whips to Sri Debasish Datta Roy for taking necessary action. 20. Section 23 of the Panchayat Act reads as follows: 23. Removal of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan: (1) The Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Gram Panchayat carried by a majority of its existing members at a meeting specially convened for the purpose by the prescribed authority. (2) No meeting under sub-section (1) shall be convened by the prescribed authority unless a notice in writing has been given to him by at least one third of the existing members of the Gram Panchayat in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The prescribed authority shall convene the meeting under sub-section (1) after giving at least fifteen days prior notice to all the existing members of the Gram Panchayat. (4) If the motion for removal of Pradhan is under consideration, the meeting will be presided over by the Upa-Pradhan and if the motion for removal of Upa-Pradhan is under consideration, the meeting will be presided over by the Pradhan. (4) If the motion for removal of Pradhan is under consideration, the meeting will be presided over by the Upa-Pradhan and if the motion for removal of Upa-Pradhan is under consideration, the meeting will be presided over by the Pradhan. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act, while any notion for removal of a Pradhan and an Upa-Pradhan from their offices is under consideration in a meeting convened under sub-section (1), the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan shall not preside over such meeting, but he shall have right to speak or otherwise take part in the proceedings of such a meeting, including the right to vote, and the meeting shall be presided over by the prescribed authority or his nominee who shall not have the right to vote. (6) If the motion for removal of a Pradhan, or as the case may be an Upa-Pradhan, is not carried out by the majority of the existing members of the Gram Panchayat, no subsequent meeting for the removal of the same Pradhan, or as the case may be the Upa-Pradhan, shall be convened within a year of the previous meeting. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act, majority of the existing members of a Gram Panchayat shall form the quorum for a meeting for removal of a Pradhan or an Upa-Pradhan, as the case may be under this Section. (8) Subject to the provision of this Section, the procedure for the removal of the Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan including that to be followed at such meeting, shall be such as may be prescribed. Notice for removal of the Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan has to be given by at least 1/3rd of the existing member of the Tripura Panchayat. What was the information before Mr. G.R. Das as to how many members were there in Noorpur Gram Panchayat and that the notice had been signed by more than 1/3rd members. We see no material on record. The powers of convening a meeting cannot be so lightly exercised and the Panchayat Officer must satisfy himself that the necessary ingredients of Section 23 have been complied with before convening a meeting. In the present case there is no noting on the file and we are left guessing as to on what basis Sri G.R. Das took the action. 21. Official files must be maintained in a proper manner. In the present case there is no noting on the file and we are left guessing as to on what basis Sri G.R. Das took the action. 21. Official files must be maintained in a proper manner. In this case we have grave doubt whether the whip issued by Md. Badruzzaman accompanied the letter of Sri Surajit Dutta. As pointed out by us above, though according to Sri G.R. Das both whips were received on 20th May, 2010, in the whip issued by Md. Badruzzaman the date is clearly written as 24.05.2010. Therefore, it could not have been received on 20th May, 2010. If there was a noting sheet on the file and it was mentioned in the noting sheet that two whips had been received, we could have believed Sri Das. A noting sheet and the correspondence must move simultaneously and we are clearly of the opinion that no official file should be maintained without a noting sheet. In the absence of a noting sheet it is very easy for any official to interpolate any document in the record at a later stage and prima facie we are of the opinion that Sri G.R. Das interpolated the whip of Sri Badruzzaman on a later date i.e. after 24th May but before 28th May, because on 28th May, he had sent both the whips to Sri Dutta Roy. We are saying this because if these whips of Sri Badruzzaman had been in existence prior to 24th May, there was nothing which prevented Sri G.R. Das from sending these whips to Sri Debasish Datta Roy on 22nd May, 2010 when he sent the copies of the notices. 22. We have gone into a detailed examination of the file because we are clearly of the view that files of this nature should not be maintained so casually especially by senior officers of the office. In case, files are maintained in this way, pages can always be changed and none would be wiser. 23. We record our displeasure and direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Tripura to hold an inquiry into the matter as to why the file was not maintained properly. In case, files are maintained in this way, pages can always be changed and none would be wiser. 23. We record our displeasure and direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Tripura to hold an inquiry into the matter as to why the file was not maintained properly. We may also add that though the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan have not challenged the correctness of the motion whereby they were removed, we find that there is virtually no decision on the file showing application of mind by Sri G.R. Das for convening the meeting to consider the no confidence motion. This may even lead to invalidation of such motions. 24. Having held so, we shall now consider the fact whether the respondents were served with the whip or not. The private respondents belonging to the Congress party have placed on record material to show that the whip was sent by registered post to both the petitioners. Both these envelopes were received back un-delivered with the report that the addressees (petitioners) had refused to accept the registered letters. No doubt after the letters were received back in the office of the Md. Badruzzaman he should not have opened the envelopes but keeping in view the facts of the case, it is more than apparent that the envelopes contained the whip in question. The petitioners had signed a notice for moving a no confidence motion against the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan both belonging to the INC like the petitioners. All the other members of the gram panchayat have admitted in their reply that they received a copy of the notice of the whip. Therefore, the only assumption is that the envelopes contained the whip. 25. Shri Debasish Datta Roy in the proceedings of the special meeting recorded on 08.06.2010 has noted as follows: ***** I received a Party whip/Direction issued by Md. Badruzzaman, Member, Tripura Pradesh Congress Committee. In that Party whip/Direction, Md. Madruzzaman, Member Tripura Pradesh Congress Committee instructed the following Members of the Noorpur Gram Panchayat to remain present in the special meeting on 08.06.2010 & to vote against the motion (Copy of whip enclosed) 1. Md. Ranu Mia. 2. Md. Kabir Hussain. 3. Md. Lechu Mia. 4. Md. Safique Ali. 5. Smt. Asma Begam. 6. Hachan Ali. I also read out the said Party whip/Direction before Members present in the meeting. Md. Ranu Mia. 2. Md. Kabir Hussain. 3. Md. Lechu Mia. 4. Md. Safique Ali. 5. Smt. Asma Begam. 6. Hachan Ali. I also read out the said Party whip/Direction before Members present in the meeting. In the meeting I have explained the provisions laid down in the/section 16 of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993 and Rule 27 of the Tripura Panchayats (Election of Office Bearers) Rules, 1994 and informed the Members that, if any Member may violated the Party whip which he/she belongs, his/her Membership likely to be ceased as per explained provisions of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993 and the Tripura Panchayats (Election of Office Bearers) Rules, 1994.***** Sri N. Das states that this portion of the proceedings has not been correctly recorded. We are unable to accept such submission. All official acts are supposed to have been done properly and we see no reason why Sri Debasish Datta Roy should have wrongly recorded this portion of the proceedings. 26. Sri N. Das has placed reliance on a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Pandranki Parvathi and Others Vrs. Akula Gangaraju and Ors. (WA Nos. 1497 and 1502 of 2003). In that case also the Rules did not prescribe the procedure as to how the recognised political party was required to issue or serve the whip. In that case, the authorized person only stated that he had tried to hand over the whip to the members. The whip was not sent by registered post. The facts of the present case are totally different. The whip was sent by registered post and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act provides as follows: 27. Meaning of service by post.- Where any [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. 27. In the present case Md. 27. In the present case Md. Badruzzaman has pledged his oath that he sent the whip by registered post and both the petitioners have refused to accept the registered letters. This is deemed service in terms of Section 27. In addition thereto in the present case the whip was with Sri G.R. Das prior to 28.05.2010 when he sent it to the Presiding Officer. We have also been shown a copy of one such whip which bears the original receipt by the BDO dated 24th May, 2010. Thus such a whip was definitely in existence on 24th May, 2010. In view of these circumstances, we are of the view that the whip was read out on 08.06.2010 and, therefore, the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court will not be applicable to the present case. 28. We have already noted that on 28th May, 2010 Sri G.R. Das had sent the whips to Sri Debasish Datta Roy. Therefore, the whips were with him. No doubt initially in the documents it was mentioned that when Sri Debasish Datta Roy returned the files, he only returned it with one whip but he has clarified that this was a mistake and he had returned both the whips. 29. Be that as it may, we are clearly of the view that Sri Debasish Datta Roy had read over the whip before votes were cast. Even in the proceedings recorded in Bangala it is clearly mentioned that two members i.e. the petitioners violated the whip issued by the party. Presumption of truth is attached to official documents and in this case the presumption has not been rebutted by the petitioners. The respondent No. 4 is a Govt. official and by noting that the petitioner has voted against the whip he has neither helped one political party nor the other. He has noted certain facts which may go against the members, but no ground has been made out as to why he should have falsely recorded this fact in the minutes. 30. We are also not impressed with the contention raised by Sri N. Das, that respondent No. 4 was not authorized to read such minutes. The provision of the Tripura Panchayat Act and Rule 27 of the Rules and Rule 5 of the Administration Rules do not prohibit the Presiding Officer from reading out such notice. 30. We are also not impressed with the contention raised by Sri N. Das, that respondent No. 4 was not authorized to read such minutes. The provision of the Tripura Panchayat Act and Rule 27 of the Rules and Rule 5 of the Administration Rules do not prohibit the Presiding Officer from reading out such notice. In fact Rule-27 clearly provides that if the intention of the Presiding Officer is drawn that any member has violated the whip and earned disqualification under Section 16 of the Act then he has to record this fact in the remarks column. He may also obtain clarification from such member and then refer the question to the Block Development Officer. When the Presiding Officer is aware of the whip since that has already been sent to him, it is not necessary that his attention be drawn by some other members. He himself is suo-moto entitled to inform the members that they had violated the whip. He may also obtain clarification but merely because he has not obtained clarification from the members disobey the whips, this will not make his action referring the question to Block Development Officer illegal. We may make it clear that we are not deciding the abstract question as to whether the Presiding Officer is entitled to read the whip, when there is no other proof that the whip was issued to the members. In the present case, there is proof that the whip was issued, sent by registered post to the appellants and in this circumstances we can believe the Presiding Officer that he read over the whip during the proceedings also. 31. Sri Somik Deb has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sadashiv H. Patil Vrs. Vithal D. Teke and Others (2000) 8 SCC 82 wherein the Apex Court held as follows: 20. It was next submitted that any copy of rules & regulations of the municipal party or aghadi or front have not been placed on record nor filed with the Collector along with the statement in Form I and therefore the working of the Nagar Vikas Aghadi and the person authorized to issue whip cannot be spelled out. This contention has also to be rejected. This contention has also to be rejected. The filing of the rules and regulations contemplated by clauses (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 is for the purpose of registration of a municipal party with the Collector. For the purpose of these appeals, we do not propose to go into the question as to what would be the effect of absence of rules and regulations on the formation of the aghadi or front or the effect on the registration of non-filing of such rules and regulation, if there be one, for two reasons. Firstly, the registration of municipal party is complete consequent upon the entries having been made in the register Form IV and also having been notified in the Government Gazette. Nobody has raised any objection to the registration of the municipal party or validity thereof and sought for its cancellation. Secondly, for the purpose of the controversy arising for decision in these appeals, we could have spelled out from the rules and regulations, if available, who was the person or authority authorized in this behalf for the purpose of issuing a whip under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. In the Case at hand, such an authorization was given in the resolution passed at the meeting dated 18.10.1997. It is nobody's case that such an authorization was at any time questioned or revoked. Section 3(1)(b) does not provide for when and how such authorization shall be given; all that the provision contemplates is that there must be any person or authority authorized in this behalf by the political party or aghadi or front to which the councilor belongs. The language of the resolution clearly spells out compliance with this requirement. Dr. Erram, the President of the aghadi and in his absence Shri Pawaskar, a Councilor, were specifically authorized to issue a whip. The whips on the basis of which the disqualification is sought to be spelled out are signed by Dr. Erram or by Dr. Erram and Shri Pawaskar both. The whips issued satisfy the requirement of Section 3(1)(b) in view of the specific authorization given in this behalf. The present case is similar to the case decided by the Apex Court. 32. Reliance has also been placed by Sri Somik Deb on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh Vrs. Erram and Shri Pawaskar both. The whips issued satisfy the requirement of Section 3(1)(b) in view of the specific authorization given in this behalf. The present case is similar to the case decided by the Apex Court. 32. Reliance has also been placed by Sri Somik Deb on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh Vrs. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and others (2004) 8 SCC 747 but in our opinion that judgment may not be strictly applicable in the present case. 33. In this case after going through the entire records, we are of the considered view that the petitioners were well aware about whip. They therefore, refused to accept the communication sent to them by registered post and they were also apprised of the whip by respondent No. 4 before voting took place. 34. We are, therefore, of the considered view that they deserve to be disqualified and consequently, we find no merit in these appeals and accordingly the same are dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary to the State of Tripura who shall ensure that instructions are issued to all officials in the State to maintain files properly containing both communications and noting sheets. He shall also hold an inquiry against Mr. G.R. Das as to why the file was not maintained properly in the present case. This inquiry be completed within a period of 3(three) months from today and thereafter affidavit of compliance be filed in Court. For this purpose, the matter be listed on 2nd June, 2014.