Dismissed

Raghunath Das and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Aug 2022WP(C)/3411/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two interconnected writ petitions challenging a directive issued by KAAC authorities to convene a meeting regarding a no-confidence motion against the Chairman of the Howraghat Municipal Board. It held the directive unsustainable as no valid requisition was filed under the applicable Town Committee Rules.

What did the court decide?

The impugned letter dated 01/08/2022 is set aside; Writ Petitions are disposed of; Requisitionists advised to submit a fresh requisition.

Raghunath Das and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010155812022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5110/2022

¶5

PRATAP HANDIQUE S/O SRI NARESWAR HANDIQUE,

¶6

R/O HOWRAGHAT TOWN, WARD NO. 1, P.O. AND P.S.- HOWRAGHAT, DIST.KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN- 782481.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., ASSAM, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006.

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN- 781006 ASSAM.

¶10

3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL (KAAC) DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM.

¶11

4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER HOWRAGHAT MUNICIPAL BOARD HOWRAGHAT KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782481.

¶12

Page No.# 2/6

¶13

5:THE JOINT SECRETARY INCHARGE-CHARGE TOWN COMMITTEE AFFAIRS KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶16

Linked Case : WP(C)/3411/2021

¶17

RAGHUNATH DAS AND 4 ORS. S/O- LT. ARJUN DAS R/O- WARD NO.2 P.O. HOWRAGHAT DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782481

¶18

2: RAMESH KEMPRAI S/O- LT. GAJEN KEMPRAI R/O- WARD NO.3 P.O. HOWRAGHAT DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782481

¶19

3: SAJAL DEB S/O- KAMAKHYA DEB R/O- WARD NO.4 P.O. HOWRAGHAT DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782481

¶20

4: MOMIT KHAKHLARY S/O- LT. BIREN KHAKHLARY R/O- WARD NO.5 P.O. HOWRAGHAT DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG

¶21

Page No.# 3/6

¶22

ASSAM PIN- 782481 5: JOY PRAKASH GOWALA S/O- DHANIRAM GOWALA R/O- WARD NO.2 P.O. HOWRAGHAT DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782481 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. ASSAM JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GHY-06 2:THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ASSAM GHY-16 3:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL (KAAC) DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER HOWRAGHAT MUNICIPAL BOARD HOWRAGHAT KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782481 5:SHRI PRATAP HANDIQUE CHAIRMAN HOWRAGHAT MUNICIPAL BOARD P.O.- HOWRGHAT DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782481 -----------Advocate for : MR. B K DAS Advocate for : SR. GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶23

Page No.# 4/6

¶24

BEFORE

¶25

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Date : 16/08/2022

¶28

Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in WP(C) 5110/2022 and Mr. M.K. Borah, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in WP(C) 3411/2021. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC authorities and Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the official respondents.

¶29

The controversy involved in both these writ petitions are inter-connected and, therefore, I propose to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common order.

¶30

The writ petitioners in WP(C) 3411/2021 are the elected Ward Commissioners of Howraghat Municipal Board coming under the KAAC jurisdiction. It appears that there are 7 (seven) members of the Howraghat Municipal Board, in total, out of which, two are nominated members. The five writ petitioners are the elected members of the Municipal Board. On 25/06/2021, the five elected members had addressed a letter to the Executive Officer, Howraghat Municipal Board, informing him that they had lost confidence on the writ petitioner in WP(C) 5110/2022 i.e. Sri Pratap Handique, who is the elected Chairman of the Howraghat Municipal Board. A request was, therefore, made to the effect that immediate steps be taken to remove him from the post of Chairman. When no action was taken on the letter dated 25/06/2021, the five requisitionists had approached this Court by filing WP(C) 3411/2021 seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Executive Officer to take action in the matter and remove the Chairman of the Board from his office.

¶31

It appears that on 04/04/2022, the five requisitionists had submitted a requisition before the Executive Officer, Howraghat Municipal Board under Section 28(2) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 with a request to convene a special meeting so as to discuss the “No Confidence Motion” brought against the Chairman, viz. Sri Pratap Handique within 20 days of receipt of the requisition. From the materials available on record, I do not find anything to indicate that any step was taken to convene the special meeting as requested by the five requisitionists. Eventually, on 01/08/2022, the Joint secretary In-charge, TCA, KAAC, Diphu, had addressed a letter to the Executive Officer, Howraghat Municipal Board, Howraghat, under the authority of the Autonomous Council, asking him to exercise jurisdiction as per mandate of Rule 8(3)(a)(b)(c) (d) and (e) of the Karbi Anglong District (Constitution of Town Committee) First Amendment Rules, 2005.

¶32

Assailing the communication dated 01/08/2022, the second writ petition being WP(C)

¶33

Page No.# 5/6

¶34

5110/2022 has been filed by the Chairman of the Municipal Board, inter-alia, contending that the Joint Secretary, KAAC did not have any authority or jurisdiction under the law to issue such a direction to the Executive Officer of the Municipal board to take any action in the matter, as indicated in the letter dated 01/08/2022.

¶35

The KAAC authorities have filed affidavit-in-opposition bringing on record the requisition dated 04/04/2022 submitted by the five requisitionists to contend that the impugned letter was nothing but an advisory issued to the Chief Executive Officer, Howraghat Municipal Board to take appropriate action in the matter, in accordance with law.

¶36

Mr. Biswas submits that since there is no valid requisition submitted by the five requisitionists, relief as prayed for in WP(C) 3411/2021 would not be permissible under the law. In so far as the impugned letter dated 01/08/2022 is concerned, Mr. Biswas submits that his client is not averse to facing the floor test but until and unless a proper requisition under the correct provision of the law is submitted before the appropriate authority, no further action in the matter would be permissible under the law. As such, submits Mr. Biswas, the instruction issued by the impugned letter dated 01/08/2022 is illegal since there is no requisition submitted under the provision of amended Rule 8 of the Karbi Anglong District (Constitution of Town Committee) First Amendment Rules, 2005, before the Executive Officer till date.

¶37

Amended Rule 8(3)(a) (b) (c) (d) & (e) of the Rules of 2005 lays down the procedure to be adopted if a notice of No-confidence is brought against the Chairman/Vice Chairman by not less than one-fourth of the total members of the Town Committee. Once a requisition is received by the Executive Officer, the same has to be processed as the provisions of Rule 8.

¶38

A careful reading of the requisition dated 04/04/2022, goes to show that the requisitionists had quoted the provisions of Section 28(2) of the Municipal Act, 1956 demanding convention of a special meeting.

¶39

There is no controversy at the bar that in view of Article 243-zc of the Constitution, the provisions of Assam Municipal Act, 1956 would not have application in this case. If that be so, I find force in the submission of Mr. Biswas that there is no valid requisition received by the Executive Officer so as to convene the special meeting. Therefore, the question of acting upon it as per Rules 8 (a) (b) (c) (d) & (e) of the Rules of 2005 does not arise in the eye of law. That, however, cannot be a ground for this Court to restrain the requisitionists from seeking convention of special meeting to discuss the “No Confidence Motion” against the Chairman in accordance with the provisions of Rule (8) of the Rules of 2005, if they have, in fact, lost confidence on him.

¶40

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the impugned

¶41

Page No.# 6/6

¶42

letter dated 01/08/2022 is unsustainable in the eye of law. The same is accordingly set aside. The requisitionists are, however, at liberty to submit a fresh requisition before the Executive Officer of the Howraghat Municipal Board, is so advised.

¶43

If such a requisition is received by the Executive Officer, the same be acted upon within two weeks and a meeting be convened by the Executive Officer of the Board, so as to discuss the “No Confidence Motion” if any, proposed against the Chairman of the Board, if the requisition is submitted by not less than ¼ of the total number of Ward Commissioners.

¶44

In view of the observations made herein above, WP(C) 3411/2021 stands answered. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

sukhamay

¶47

Comparing Assistant

Raghunath Das and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath Das and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 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

Khajur Begum Vs the Punjab National Bank and Anr.

Calcom Cement India Limited Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Chandana Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Raghunath Das and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Aktar Hussain Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Pratap Handique Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.