Allowed

Mozmul Hoque and 8 Ors. v. Ayat Banu Begum and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Jun 2022I.A.(Civil)/1446/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an interlocutory application seeking the impleadment of applicants as additional respondents. The applicants, elected members who voted against the opposite party in a No Confidence Motion, argued their presence was necessary for the adjudication of the connected writ petition challenging the validity of that motion under the Assam Panchayat Act.

What did the court decide?

The applicants are impleaded as party respondent Nos. 7 to 15 in the connected WP(C) No. 3025/2022. The Interlocutory Application Stands allowed.

Mozmul Hoque and 8 Ors. Vs Ayat Banu Begum… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010087412022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1446/2022 MOZMUL HOQUE AND 8 ORS S/O KAPIL UDDIN R/O BAGHMARI PART I PO BAGHMARI PS BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-73345

¶5

2: ANIL KUMR NATH S/O BHABENDRA CHANDRA NATH R/O BAGHMARI PO BAGHMARI PS BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783345

¶6

3: SOFIQUL HOQUE S/O ABDUL HAMID R/O BAGHMARI PART III PO BAGHMARI PS BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783345 4: ASHOK KUMAR NATH S/O HARMOHAN NATH R/O HANDARTARI PO LAKHIGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-73345

¶7

5: SUMITRA NATH

¶8

Page No.# 2/6

¶9

W/O UMESH NATH R/O PAIKANDARA PART I PO BAGHMARI PS BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783345 6: SABITA DEVI W/O-NIRANJAN NATH P.O. AND P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM. PIN-783348 7: TAJINA BIBI MEMBER W/O-MOINUL HOQUE PO BAGHMARI PS BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-73345 8: ELIMA KHATUN MEMBER

¶10

S/O-MOSKATIN SHEIKH R/O BAGHMARI PART I I PO BAGHMARI PS BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783345

¶11

9: DIPTI DEVI W/O- RUSENDRA CHANDRA NATH R/O PAIKANDARA PART II PO BAGHMARI PS BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783345 VERSUS

¶12

AYAT BANU BEGUM AND 5 ORS W/O LATE ANOWAR HUSSAIN R/O PAIKANDARA PART II

¶13

Page No.# 3/6

¶14

PO BAGHMARI PS BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GHY.- 781006. 3:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI GHY.- 781037. 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DHUBRI ZILLA PARISHAD ASSAM DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783335 5:THE SECRETARY BAGHMARI GAON PANCHAYAT P.O. BAGHMARI P.S. BILASIPARA DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783345. 6:THE PRESIDENT BILASIPARA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT BILASIPARA DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348. -----------Advocate for : MR. A K HUSSAIN Advocate for : MR. M K CHOUDHURY appearing for AYAT BANU BEGUM AND 5 ORS

¶15

Linked Case : WP(C)/3025/2022

¶16

AYAT BANU BEGUM

¶17

W/O- LT. ANOWAR HUSSAIN, R/O- PAIKANDARA PART-II, P.O. BAGHMARI, P.S. BILASIPARAM, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783345.

¶18

Page No.# 4/6

¶19

VERSUS

¶20

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.- 781006.

¶21

2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI GHY.- 781037. 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DHUBRI ZILLA PARISHAD ASSAM PIN- 783335. 4:THE SECRETARY BAGHMARI GAON PANCHAYAT P.O. BAGHMARI P.S. BILASIPARA DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783345. 5:THE PRESIDENT BILASIPARA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT BILASIPARA DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783345

¶22

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY

¶23

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D.

¶24

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶25

ORDER

¶26

08.06.2022

¶27

Heard Mr. A K Hussain, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. M Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. N K Dev Nath, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department, Assam for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5.

¶28

Page No.# 5/6

¶29

In this application the applicants pray for their impleadment as party respondent Nos. 7 to 15 in the connected WP(C) No. 3025/2022 filed by the opposite party No. 1.

¶30

Pursuant to the order of the Court dated 21.04.2022 passed in WP(C) 1512/2022, though the President of Bilasipara Anchalik Panchayat, Bilasipara on 28.04.2022 convened the Special Meeting regarding No Confidence Motion brought against the opposite party No. 1 i.e. the President of No. 113 Baghmari Gaon Panchayat under Bilasipara Development Block, but alleging that it was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, the decision taken in the said Special Meeting as well as the acceptance of the said No Confidence Motion against her should be set aside and quashed. As such, the opposite party No. 1 filed the connected WP(C) No. 3025/2022, which is pending for consideration.

¶31

The applicants submitted that 10 members of said No. 113 Baghmari Gaon Panchayat voted in favour of the Motion against the opposite party No. 1 on 28.04.2022 and accordingly, No Confidence Motion was established against her.

¶32

After the same, the Block Development Officer, Bilasipara Development Block on 29.04.2022 wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri seeking necessary instruction for further process as per the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.

¶33

It is submitted by the applicants that the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri by its order No. DDP-04/2022/90 dated 05.05.2022 clarified that as said No Confidence Motion was passed against the opposite party No. 1/writ petitioner by a majority of more than 2/3^rd of the total members of the said Gaon Panchayat, the said President of No. 113 Baghmari Gaon Panchayat under Bilasipara Development Block deemed to have vacated her office forthwith and as per the provision contained in Section 13(2) (d) of the said 1994 Act, the existing Vice President of said Gaon Panchayat was empowered to exercise and perform all the power and discharge all the duties of the President as provided under Section 13(1) of the said 1994 Act, till the office of the President is filled up in the manner as provided under Sub-Section (1)(b) of Section 6 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 with immediate effect, until further order.

¶34

Page No.# 6/6

¶35

It is submitted by Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party No. 1/petitioner of WP(C) No. 3025/2022 did not state these material facts in her said petition and submitted that the applicants being the elected members of the said Gaon Panchayat who had voted against her in the No Confidence Motion are necessary parties for proper adjudication of said WP(C) No. 3025/2022, which is presently pending for adjudication.

¶36

However, the opposite party No. 1/ writ petitioner by filing an objection with regard to the impleadment of the applicants submitted that she has preferred the connected WP(C) No. 3025/2022 only with regard to non-compliance of the provision of Section 17(3) of the said 1994 Act in the said Special Meeting of No Confidence Motion against her and that the applicants are nowhere connected with regard to the adjudication of the said writ petition preferred by her.

¶37

Considering the fact that on the basis of the application/requisition of the applicants, No Confidence Motion against the opposite party No. 1 was moved, the Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants being the elected members of the said Gaon Panchayat are necessary parties for proper adjudication of said WP(C) No. 3025/2022.

¶38

As such, the applicants be impleaded as party respondent Nos. 7 to 15 in the connected WP(C) No. 3025/2022.

¶39

Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application Stands allowed.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Mozmul Hoque and 8 Ors. v. Ayat Banu Begum and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mozmul Hoque and 8 Ors. v. Ayat Banu Begum and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Saddam Hussain Vs Monir Uddin Ahmed and 10 Ors.

Mohammad Ali and Anr. Vs Monir Uddin Ahmed and 17 Ors.

The Central Administrative Tribunal and Anr. Vs City Montessori High School and 8 Ors.

M/S Shiva Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Monju Ara Bibi Vs Ayat Banu Begum and 5 Ors.

Board of Directors of Alomganj S S Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.