Dismissed

Mrs. Jitumoni Boro v. the State of Assam and 13 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Aug 2022WP(C)/3054/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition assailing the convening of a special meeting by the Panchayat Secretary without forwarding a requisition copy to the President. The Court directed the Secretary to forward the requisition copy within three days to enable the President to exercise her statutory right to grant approval within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Secretary to forward the copy of the requisition dated 20/04/2022 to the petitioner within three days.

Mrs. Jitumoni Boro Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010087262022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3054/2022

¶5

MRS. JITUMONI BORO

¶6

W/O NIREN KUMAR BORO, R/O VILL-HALONGJULI, P.O.-BAMUNIGAON, P.S.-CHHAYGAON, DIST-KAMRUP(R), ASSAM, PIN-781141

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 13 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶9

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP(R) AMINGAON GUWAHATI ASSAM

¶10

3:THE SECRETARY BAMUNIGAON ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT P.O.-BAMUNIGAON DIST-KAMRUP(R) ASSAM 4:THE VICE PRESIDENT BAMUNIGAON ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT P.O.-BAMUNIGAON DIST-KAMRUP(R) ASSAM 5:RAJANI DAS MEMBER OF BAMUNIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT WARD NO. 1

¶11

Page No.# 2/4

¶12

KAMRUP ASSAM 6:RAJEN RABHA MEMBER OF BAMUNIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT WARD NO. 2 KAMRUP (R) ASSAM 7:SMTI REBATI BORO MEMBER OF BAMUNIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT WARD NO. 3 KAMRUP (R) ASSAM 8:HEMANTA BORO MEMBER OF BAMUNIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT WARD NO. 4 KAMRUP (R) ASSAM 9:GOPINATH RABHA MEMBER OF BAMUNIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT WARD NO. 5 KAMRUP (R) ASSAM 10:ROSEMIDHA K. SANGMA MEMBER OF BAMUNIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT WARD NO. 6 KAMRUP (R) ASSAM 11:SMTI MAKAN BORO MEMBER OF BAMUNIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT WARD NO. 7 KAMRUP (R) ASSAM 12:BABUL RABHA MEMBER OF BAMUNIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT WARD NO. 8 KAMRUP (R) ASSAM 13:SMTI BIMALA RABHA MEMBER OF BAMUNIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT WARD NO. 9

¶13

Page No.# 3/4

¶14

KAMRUP (R) ASSAM

¶15

14:SMTI PRANITA BORO MEMBER OF BAMUNIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT WARD NO. 10 KAMRUP (R) ASSAM. (RESPONDENT NO. 6 TO 14 ARE MEMBERS OF BAMUNIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT AND C/O THE SECRETARY OF BAMUNIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT) P.O.-BAMUNIGAO

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B D DAS

¶17

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

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 09/08/2022

¶21

Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Kalita, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam, appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 3, Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 14.

¶22

In this writ petition, the communication dated 20/04/2022 issued by the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Secretary of the Bamunigaon Gaon Panchayat, addressed to the writ petitioner i.e. the President of No. 19 Bamunigaon Gaon Panchayat, has been assailed on the ground that while forwarding the requisition, the Secretary has himself convened the meeting on 24/06/2022 without giving opportunity to the petitioner to exercise her statutory power under Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 and also without forwarding the copy of the requisition.

¶23

The petitioner has also assailed the letter dated 03/05/2022 issued by the respondent no. 3 informing her that as many as 10 members of the Bamunigaon Gaon Panchayat has expressed “No Confidence Motion” against her and, therefore, it was necessary to convene the special meeting. According to Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner, copy of the requisition was never

¶24

Page No.# 4/4

¶25

forwarded to his client.

¶26

Mr. Dutta, learned departmental counsel submits that the Secretary had merely proposed 26.04.2022 as the date for convening the meeting and, therefore, no fault can be found with such communication. There is, however, nothing on record to convincingly establish that the copy of the requisition was ever forwarded to the writ petitioner.

¶27

Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 has been held to be a mandatory provision and under the said section, the President of the Gaon Panhayat has the option to grant approval for holding a special meeting within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the request. It is, therefore, clear that the President of the Gaon Panhayat is entitled to a copy of the requisition as well for taking a decision on the request for convening a special meeting.

¶28

Since the controversy raised in the writ petition primarily relates to non-forwarding of requisition to the petitioner and as agreed to by learned counsel for all the parties, I dispose of the writ petition by providing that within three days from today, a copy of the requisition dated 20/04/2022 shall be forwarded by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner in her official address. The writ petitioner to acknowledge the receipt of the same in writing. Within 15 (fifteen) days thereafter, it would be open for the petitioner to grant approval for convening the meeting. If the petitioner fails to do so, law will take its own course, in which event, it will be open for the respondent no. 3 to take further steps in the matter for convening the special meeting so as to discuss the “No Confidence Motion” brought against her in accordance with Section 15(1) of the Act of 1994.

¶29

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

Stay order granted earlier shall stand modified to the extent indicated above.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

sukhamay

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Mrs. Jitumoni Boro v. the State of Assam and 13 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Jitumoni Boro v. the State of Assam and 13 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Niku Tent House Vs Nitin Khare and Anr.

Smti Dipali Daimari Vs M S Manivannan and Anr.

Kashem Ali Vs M S Manivannan and Anr.

Mrs. Jitumoni Boro Vs the State of Assam and 13 Ors.

Phanidhar Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

M/S Satgaon Jalgutha Matchayajibi Samabai Samity Limited, Vs Phanidhar Das and 2 Ors.