Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 201 (MEG)

Sakayat Hussain v. G. H. A. D. C.

2019-11-05

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2019
JUDGMENT : H.S. Thangkhiew, J. 1. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Gaonbura of Lokaichar and Meringgipara on 8th March, 2006 and on a complaint filed against the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 directed the Revenue Collector to conduct a spot inquiry and to submit a detailed report. On submission of the report, the respondent No. 2 issued show cause and the petitioner denied all the allegations leveled against him. Consequent to the proceedings the petitioner was removed from the post of Gaonbura and the respondent No. 3 appointed in his place. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the removal and appointment was not as per due process, as such he is before this Court by way of this writ petition, with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 5th February, 2016. 2. Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the petitioner has been serving as Gaonbura of Lokaichar and Meringgipara since the year 2005 after being unanimously elected by the villagers and the appointment was accordingly approved by the respondent No. 2 on 8th March, 2006. He submits that without any cogent reason a complaint was lodged against him and pursuant to the complaint, the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council by order dated 22nd July, 2015 directed the Revenue Collectors to conduct a spot inquiry and to submit a detailed report. He submits that the said report exceeded its mandate, in view of the fact that the findings suggested the name of the respondent No. 3 to be appointed as Gaonbura of the village in his place. He further submits that though show cause has been filed against the inquiry report denying all the allegations, the respondent No. 2 had issued the impugned order dated 5th February, 2016 cancelling the petitioner's appointment and the respondent No. 3 was appointed in his place. He contends that the entire process by which the respondent No. 3 has been appointed is without due process and the same is to be interfered with by this Court. It is noted that Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press his prayer against his removal, but is more aggrieved with the manner in which the respondent No. 3 had been appointed. 3. Mr. It is noted that Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press his prayer against his removal, but is more aggrieved with the manner in which the respondent No. 3 had been appointed. 3. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that a Gaonbura is an agent of the administration of justice and for revenue collection and is under the control and supervision of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council. He also submits that the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council has adopted the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 along with the rules contained therein and as such the provisions of appointment and removal as contained in the parent Act are applicable with modifications as legislated by the GHADC. He submits that the Gaonbura to continue in office has to have the support of the villagers and enjoy their confidence and it is not the question of length of service which will determine whether a right is accrued to continue in office. 4. Learned counsel submits that there was a complaint by the villagers which was inquired and report dated 3rd August, 2015 was submitted before the respondents No. 1 & 2. He submits that the petitioner was thereafter given adequate opportunity to defend himself and was issued a show cause notice dated 11th August, 2015 fixing 17th August, 2015 for show cause reply and appearance. He submits that the show cause reply was duly considered by the respondent No. 2 before passing the impugned order. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the general public meeting of Lokaichar which was held on 30th June, 2015 (Annexure-E of the affidavit of the respondent No. 3). Resolution No. 2 he submits, clearly reflects that the respondent No. 3 was unanimously selected to be the new Gaonbura of the village and that in the meeting itself it was requested that the competent authority appoint the new Gaonbura as early as possible. He lastly submits that the proceedings not being vitiated in any manner, no case has been made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 and as such the writ petition be dismissed. 5. Ms. S.S. Gewali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has adopted the submissions as tendered by Mr. He lastly submits that the proceedings not being vitiated in any manner, no case has been made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 and as such the writ petition be dismissed. 5. Ms. S.S. Gewali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has adopted the submissions as tendered by Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 and submits that she has no further submission to make in this regard. 6. Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel for the impleaded respondent No. 4 submits that the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of the respondent No. 3 was made on the basis of the recommendation of the respondent No. 4 is factually incorrect. He submits that the respondent No. 3 was duly selected by the villagers and he being the elected representative only assisted the process for appointment of the respondent No. 3 by communicating the wishes of the people to the respondent No. 2, and in fact had also given an undertaking (Annexure-VIII of the writ petition) to ensure the Respondent No. 3 acted judiciously in the discharge of his duties as Gaonbura. Learned counsel further submits that in no manner can this be considered to be the basis by which the respondent No. 3 has been appointed. He concludes his submissions by submitting that the process of appointment being transparent and above board, the writ petition deserves no consideration. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and examined the materials on records. The facts as they pertain is that there were certain complaints against the petitioner by the residents of the concerned village with regard to the functioning of the petitioner especially with regard to irregularities in the manner of disbursement of subsidy to BPL families, distribution of flood relief as well as delay in issuing of certificates to the villagers. It seems on the basis of the said complaint an inquiry was instituted wherein prima facie, it was discovered that the allegations had substance. As reflected in the records, and not denied by the petitioner, he was asked to show cause against the same. It seems on the basis of the said complaint an inquiry was instituted wherein prima facie, it was discovered that the allegations had substance. As reflected in the records, and not denied by the petitioner, he was asked to show cause against the same. After show cause had been filed and examined, the respondent No. 2 by virtue of power vested by his office issued the impugned order dated 5th February, 2016 whereby the petitioner was removed and the respondent No. 3 was appointed in his place. 8. Though the removal of the petitioner from office may not be a vital point to be addressed in view of the pointed submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner in this regard, the factum of appointment of the respondent No. 3 is to be examined as the same has been questioned. On this issue, a perusal of the affidavit of the respondent No. 3 wherein the Resolution has been annexed shows that the respondent No. 3 had been unanimously selected on 30th June, 2015. The said proceedings are quoted herein below:- "Proceeding of the general public meeting of Lokaichar which was held on 30th June 2015 at around 2:00 PM in the premises of Lokaichar community Hall under the chairmanship of Shri. Sohid Miah. At the very outset of the meeting the chairman warmly welcome all the public present in the meeting and then after a short pray to God, he took him chair and expressed the agendas of the meeting and began discussion. After a prolong discussion in the meeting the following resolutions are resolved under consideration. Resolution No. 1. After a hot and long discussion in the meeting, the house is unanimously resolved to change the existing Gaonbura of Lokaichar for mis-exercising his power and function since long time. Resolution No. 2. Again after a long discussion in the meeting, the house is unanimously selected Shri:- Dilmohammad Sorkar as a Gaonbura of Lokaichar village, and also the house is requested the competent authority to appoint the new Gaonbura as early as possible. And lastly as there is no any other business to be discussed, the meeting is ended by the vote of thanks from the Chair. Sd/- Chairman of the meeting" 9. And lastly as there is no any other business to be discussed, the meeting is ended by the vote of thanks from the Chair. Sd/- Chairman of the meeting" 9. From the Resolution as submitted it appears that the villagers had unanimously selected the respondent No. 3 to be the new Gaonbura of the said village which is as per procedure prevalent in the selection of Gaonbura in such villages. As such, the submission that the respondent No. 3 was appointed on the direction of the respondent No. 4 is found to have no substance. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the removal of the petitioner or the appointment of the respondent No. 3 is not vitiated in any manner as sought to be made out by the petitioner to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On a footnote it is observed that the GHADC being cloaked with power under the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India, it cannot be said that there was lack of competency or jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order in the absence of any specific legislation or executive order in this regard. 11. The writ petition therefore being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Records to be returned to the office of the respondents No. 1 & 2 through the standing counsel. 12. The parties to bear their own costs.