Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1239 (GAU)

SAHABUDDIN AHMED v. STATE OF ASSAM

2017-09-05

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Anand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as well as Mr. G. Pegu, learned State counsel. 2. As per the Notification issued vide Memo No. KDP. 137/MSDP.PROPOSAL/2012/ Pt.1/86 dated 08.10.2014, the constitution of a Block Level Committee for the Minority Concentration Block was provided for. 3. As per the said Notification, the Block Level Committee to be constituted would be as under : (i) Block Level Head of Panchayati Raj - Chairman (ii) Block Development Officer - Co-Chairman (iii) Block Level Officer of Education - Member (iv) Block Level Officer of Health - Member (v) Block Level Officer of ICDS - Member (vi) Block Level Officer of Welfare - Member (vii) Local Lead Bank Officer - Member (viii) Principal ITI, if any - Member (ix) Three representative from Reputed NGO/Civil Society working for minorities - Nominated Member by DM. 4. According to the Notification No. KDP. 137/MSDP.PROPOSAL/2012/Pt.1/86 dated 08.10.2014 under the signature of the respondent No. 3, a Block Level Committee for the Minority Concentration Block for the Sub-Divisional Block, Hajo was constituted. In the said constitution of the Board, the names of the petitioners were included. 5. In this writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the subsequent Notification dated 26.08.2016 of the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Welfare of Minorities and Development Department, by which the authorities were pleased to dissolve the various Sub-Divisional Minorities Board including the Board at Hajo, which is situated at Kamrup (Rural). Being aggrieved by the said dissolution and the constitution of the subsequent Board by the Notification dated 08.09.2016 of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (R), this writ petition had been preferred. 6. One of the issues raised in this writ petition is that the earlier Board which was constituted, including the petitioners, was dissolved without following the Principles of Natural Justice. 7. The respondent authorities, on the other hand, takes a stand that the dissolution and constitution of the Minorities Development Board is within the realm of the Doctrine of Pleasure for the State respondent authorities, and, as such, no hearing is required to be provided to the members of the earlier Board which stood dissolved. 8. 7. The respondent authorities, on the other hand, takes a stand that the dissolution and constitution of the Minorities Development Board is within the realm of the Doctrine of Pleasure for the State respondent authorities, and, as such, no hearing is required to be provided to the members of the earlier Board which stood dissolved. 8. But in this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners makes a reference to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Sub-Divisional Welfare Boards For Scheduled Tribes & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2017 (2) GLT 437. In the said decision before the learned Division Bench, the issue involved was as to whether the dissolution and constitution of the Sub-Divisional Welfare Board for Scheduled Tribe was within the realm of the Doctrine of Pleasure for the State respondent authorities and also as to whether any incumbent member whose Board stood dissolved is entitled to opportunity of hearing or not. 9. In paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment of the learned Division Bench, it has been held that the Principles of Doctrine of Pleasure is not applicable in the said case before the learned Division Bench, meaning thereof is that the dissolution and constitution of the Sub-Divisional Welfare Board for Scheduled Tribes is not within the realm of Doctrine of Pleasure for the State respondent authorities. 10. Accordingly, in paragraph 9, it has been held that the actions of the Government in dissolving the Board is illegal, inasmuch as, there is a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. 11. The learned Division Bench also arrives at a conclusion that none of the members of the Boards dissolved were given an opportunity of hearing to convince that there was a smooth functioning of the Central and State sector Schemes for the development of the Scheduled Tribes. 12. In the instant case, it is an admitted position of the parties that before dissolving of the Board, of which the petitioners were members, no opportunities of hearing were given. Accordingly, by following the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, this Court is of the view that the Notification dated 26.08.2016, so far as it pertains to the Kamrup (R) at Sl. No. 46, and the subsequent Notification dated 08.09.2016 of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (R), are accordingly, declared to be illegal and are set aside. 13. Accordingly, by following the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, this Court is of the view that the Notification dated 26.08.2016, so far as it pertains to the Kamrup (R) at Sl. No. 46, and the subsequent Notification dated 08.09.2016 of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (R), are accordingly, declared to be illegal and are set aside. 13. As provided in the Division Bench, the dissolved Board which was constituted by the earlier Notification dated 08.10.2014, stands restored with immediate effect. 14. At this stage, Mr. N. Anand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 makes a submission that the aforesaid decision may not be a bar on the State respondent authorities to proceed in the matter, if so advised by following due procedure of law. As the interference has been made on the premises that no opportunity of hearing is given, liberty is granted to the respondent authorities to proceed, as per law, if so advised. 15. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.