Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 957 (GAU)

Bimala Das v. State of Assam

2019-08-29

SUMAN SHYAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None appears for the remaining respondents. 2. By filing the present writ petition, a challenge has been made to the resolution adopted in the meeting of the Abhayapuri Town Committee held on 29-03-2018 passing the motion of No-Confidence against the writ petitioner, thereby removing her from the office of Chairman of the Town Committee. 3. The factual background of the case, briefly stated, is that election of the Commissioners of the Abhayapuri Town Committee was held on 06-02-2015 wherein, the petitioner was elected as one of the Ward Commissioners. Thereafter, the first meeting of the Town Committee was held on 04-04-2015 wherein, the writ petitioner was elected as the Chairman and Sri Susanta Poddar, i.e. the respondent No. 9 herein as the Vice-Chairman. During the tenure of the petitioner in the office of the Chairman of the Abhayapuri Town Committee, three members of the Town Committee including the respondent No. 9 herein had submitted a notice on 06-02-2018 for convening a meeting so as to discuss the proposal of No-Confidence brought against the writ petitioner. Accordingly, meeting was convened on 27-02-2018 and again on 03-03-2018. By the resolution adopted on 03-03-2018, the petitioner was removed from the office of Chairman of the Abhayapuri Town Committee. The respondent No. 9 being the Vice-Chairman had presided over the said meeting. 4. Aggrieved by the resolution adopted on 03-03-2018, the petitioner had earlier moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1360/2018, which was disposed of by the order dated 12-03-2018 whereby, the learned Single Judge had set aside the resolution dated 03-03-2018 expressing No-Confidence against the writ petitioner with a direction to convene a special meeting afresh on 29-03-2018 so as to discuss the proposal of No Confidence brought against her. Accordingly, a special meeting of the Abhayapuri Town Committee was convened on 29-03-2018 wherein, the impugned resolution was adopted once again expressing want of confidence on the writ petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner has been voted out of her office. 5. Mr. Accordingly, a special meeting of the Abhayapuri Town Committee was convened on 29-03-2018 wherein, the impugned resolution was adopted once again expressing want of confidence on the writ petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner has been voted out of her office. 5. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned resolution dated 29-03-2018 primarily on the ground that the respondent No. 9 being a signatories of the notice dated 06-02-2018 he ought not to have presided over the meeting held on 29-03-2018. By relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Canara Bank & Ors. Vs. Debasis Das & Ors., (2003) 4 SCC 557 , Mr. Ahmed submits that it is the salutary principle of natural justice that no man shall be judge of his own cause. According to Mr. Ahmed, by presiding over the meeting, the respondent No. 9 has acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. As such, the impugned resolution is liable to be set aside. 6. The learned Govt. Advocate Ms. K. Phukan has submitted that the meeting dated 29-03-2018 was held after fulfilling all the statutory requirements and therefore, there is no justifiable ground for this Court to interfere with the resolution adopted therein. 7. I have considered the submissions advance by the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the materials available on record. The basic facts, as noticed above, are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 9 who is the Vice-Chairman of the Abhayapuri Town Committee had presided over the meeting held on 29-03-2018 wherein the resolution expressing want of confidence was adopted against the petitioner. 8. Section 44(1) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 provides that a meeting of the Committee shall be presided over by the Chairman or in his absence, by the Vice-Chairman. Sub-Section 2 of Section 44 lays down that when a meeting under Section 28 is held for removal of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman or in his absence, a Member duly elected at the meeting shall preside. From a plain reading of Section 44 it is clear that there is statutory mandate for the Vice-Chairman to preside over a meeting convened for removal of the Chairman. 9. From a plain reading of Section 44 it is clear that there is statutory mandate for the Vice-Chairman to preside over a meeting convened for removal of the Chairman. 9. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that the respondent No. 9 was one of the signatories of the notice dated 06-02-2018 demanding that a meeting be convened so as to discuss the No-Confidence Motion brought against the writ petitioner. However, the removal of the writ petitioner was not solely dependent on the personal opinion of the respondent No. 9. Rather, the resolution was put to vote and was adopted on the basis of votes cast by the Ward Commissioners present in the meeting. 10. It is also to be noted herein that the respondent No. 9 in his capacity as Vice-Chairman, had also presided over the earlier meeting held on 03-03-2018 wherein a resolution expressing want of confidence was adopted against the petitioner but the said resolution was set aside by the order dated 12-03-2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1360/2018. In the aforesaid proceeding, no such plea was raised by the writ petitioner regarding conduct of meeting by the respondent No. 9, i.e. the Vice-Chairman, nor did she raise objection on 29-03-2018 on such count. 11. As per the prescription of law it is the Vice-Chairman of the Committee who is required to preside over the meeting called for removal of the Chairman. The statute does not envisage any bar for the Vice-Chairman to preside over the meeting merely because he is one of the signatories in the notice. Moreover, the petitioner has also failed to make out a case of any prejudice being caused to her on the ground that the meeting was presided over by the respondent No. 9. As such, it cannot be said that the principles of nature justice has been violated in this case. Although, Mr. Ahmed has relied upon the decision in the case of Canara Bank (Supra), yet having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view this is not a case where that respondent No. 9 has acted as judge in his own cause inasmuch as there is no decision of the respondent No. 9 which had any adverse effect on the interest of the writ petitioner. Rather the writ petitioner has been ousted from the office on a resolution passed by majority of the Commissioner of the Town Committee. For the reasons stated herein, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned resolution dated 29-03-2018. Writ petition is, therefore, held to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.