Denong Tamuk v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & 10 Ors.
2016-06-15
AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM
body2016
DigiLaw.ai
Ajit Singh; CJ:-- 1. Mr. M. Nath, Mr. D.P. Borah & Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh & Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Heard on admission. 4. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 31.05.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No. 228(AP)/2016. 5. The appellant was elected as Chief Councillor of Pasighat Municipal Council. It appears that he lost the confidence of Councillors. In the result, a Motion of No Confidence against the appellant was moved under the provisions of Arunachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 2007 and Arunachal Pradesh Municipal (Election to the Office of Chief Councillor, Deputy Councillor, Municipal President and Vice President) Rules, 2012. Notices to all concerned under the Rules were issued by the competent authority and on the appointed date i.e. on 28.04.2016, Motion of No Confidence was passed against the appellant by a resolution. Aggrieved, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 228(AP)/2016 which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by the impugned order. 6. The main submission of the appellant is that he was not given an opportunity of hearing on 28.04.2016 and the resolution was passed in his absence. Admittedly, the appellant had received notice about the meeting scheduled for 28.04.2016. He, therefore, ought to have ensured his presence in the meeting on that date. But instead he absented himself on the pretext that he was ill and requested for postponement of the meeting. The request of appellant did not appeal to anyone and, hence, it was rejected. 7. Even to us, the appellant could not point out any provision under which such a meeting can be postponed. We are, therefore, not impressed with the submission that appellant did not get an opportunity of hearing in the meeting. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed summarily.