AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] This review petition is filed by original respondents No.7 and 8 seeking to recall and review a judgment dated 23rd March, 2021 in WP(C) No.33/2020 filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 herein. The review petitioners shall be referred to as original respondents No.7 and 8 and the respondents No.1 and 2 herein shall be referred to as the original petitioners.
[2] The original petitioners were elected Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan respectively of a Gram Panchayat. A no confidence motion was carried against them in a meeting convened on 5th December, 2019. Thereupon the District Panchayat Officer passed an order dated 18th December, 2019 in which he recorded that during the said meeting of 5th December, 2019 five members voted in favour of the motion. Remaining four members of the Panchayat had abstained from the process of election. He, therefore, ordered removal of the original petitioners from the posts of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan respectively. This order, the petitioners had challenged in the writ petition. The review petitioners herein were joined as respondents No.7 and 8 since after removal of the petitioners as Pradhan and Upa- Pradhan these original respondents No.7 and 8 were holding the posts of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan.
[3] The writ petition was allowed by the judgment dated 23rd March, 2021 making following observations :
"[11] Be that as it may, if any valid resolution of removal (popularly referred to as no confidence motion) were to be passed against the petitioners by the Panchayat, at least two things were imperative. First, a request for convening such a meeting by at least one third of the members of the Panchayat and second, a clear 15 days of notice to all members before the meeting is convened. In the present case, the action fails on both counts. Respondents have not produced any request for convening the meeting by the required number of members of the Panchayat. They have also not been able to seriously refute the grounds of the petitioners that the notice of meeting which was convened on 5th December, 2019 was served on the members of the Panchayat only on 27th November, 2019. Thus, there was clear breach of the requirement of service of notice at least 15 clear days before the date of a meeting.
[12] For all these reasons, impugned order dated 17th December, 2019 is set aside. Consequently, the petitioners shall be restored to their original position of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, induction of respondents No.7 and 8 on the said positions subsequently notwithstanding.
Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."
[4] The review petitioners had not filed any reply in the petition though they had engaged an advocate. In the review petition, they have stated that due to communication gap between their engaged advocate and themselves the reply could not be filed. There case is that the official respondents also did not bring correct facts to the notice of the Court. Their contention is that 5 members of the Panchayat had requested the District Panchayat Officer to convene a meeting for no confidence‟ against the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan. Further, on the basis of such requisition of the members of the Panchayat, the authority had issued a notice on 20th November, 2019 in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993 ("the Panchayat Act" for short) which was served on all the members of the Panchayat informing them of the date of a meeting to be held on 5th December, 2019. According to the counsel for the review petitioners, this was sufficient compliance of the Tripura Panchayats (Administration) Rules, 1994 ("the said Rules" for short). The motion of no confidence was carried by majority members of the Panchayat when 5 members voted for it in a Panchayat comprising of 9 members.
[5] Firstly, we do not find any justification for the review petitioners not to put up their reply in response to the notice issued by the High Court. The record would show that the Court had issued notice to all respondents on 21st January, 2020 after which the petition was placed for hearing before the Court on several occasions such as 11th March 2020, 13th March 2020, 18th March 2020, 10th September 2020, 14th October 2020, 25th November 2020, 10th December 2020 and lastly, on 23rd March 2021. Despite such opportunities being available to the review petitioners they failed to file their reply. Their feeble ground of miscommunication with their advocate and the prevailing coronavirus situation cannot be sufficient reasons for allowing them to pursue the review petition on the basis of pleas and documents they had never filed before the Court when the petition was disposed of.
[6] Even otherwise, these review petitioners have not made out any grounds for reconsideration of our view expressed in the judgment. The decision to quash the removal of the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan of the Panchayat was based on two factors. Firstly, it was not brought on record that at least one-third of the members of the Panchayat had requested the authority for convening a meeting for no confidence motion. Secondly, the original petitioners had contended that the notice for convening a meeting on 5th December, 2019 was served on the members of the Panchayat only on 27th November, 2019. According to the petitioners, thus the authority had not issued notice giving clear 15 days time to the members of the Panchayat.
[7] Even if we accept the contention of the review petitioners that more than one-third of the members of the Panchayat had requested for convening a meeting of no confidence motion, the question of a valid notice being served on the members of the Panchayat before the meeting was held, still survives. In this respect, the original petitioners had contended before the Court that though the notice of holding a meeting was dated 20th November 2019, the same was served on the members of the Panchayat only on 27th November, 2019. Thus, there was no clear 15 days time between the service of the notice and holding of the meeting.
[8] This factual assertion of the original petitioners was neither disputed by the official respondents while the original petitioner was heard and disposed of, nor is disputed by the review petitioners in this review petition. In the review petition, what the petitioners have stated in this respect is as follows :
"2. That, admittedly there are 9(Nine) elected members of the said Shantirbazar Gram Panchayat out of which 5(Five) members gave notice on 19th November, 2019 in Form - 2 with the District Panchayat Officer who is the prescribed authority for removal of Pradhan & Upa-Pradhan under Section 23 of the Act.
A copy of the aforesaid notice of 5(Five) members is annexed here to and marked as Annexure - 1 here in this Petition.
That, in turn, said prescribed authority, Respondent No.3 of the Writ Petition issued 15 days clear notice on 20/11/2019 under sub-section 3 of Section 23 of the Act and served upon all the elected members of the said Gram Panchayat informing the date of meeting 5/12/2019 & the place & time.
A copy of the aforesaid notice dated 20/11/2019 is annexed here to and marked as Annexure 2 herein this petition."
[9] Thus, even the review petitioners do not dispute the averment made by the original petitioners that the notice of the meeting of no confidence was served on the members of the Panchayat only on 27th November, 2019. When this aspect was pointed out to Mr. Das the counsel for the original petitioners, he argued that what is required under sub- section (3) of Section 23 of the Panchayat Act is not clear 15 days after service of notice before the meeting can be held but there must be a gap of clear 15 days between the date of issuance of notice and the convening of the meeting. This contention cannot be accepted. Section 23 of the Panchayat Act pertains to removal of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan. Under sub-section (1) of Section 23, Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat can be removed from office by a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat by a majority of the existing members at a meeting specially convened for such purpose. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 provides that no meeting under sub-section (1) shall be convened by the prescribed authority unless a notice in writing has been given to him by at least one- third of the existing members of the Gram Panchayat in prescribed format. Sub-section (3) of Section 23 which is important, reads as under :
"(3) The prescribed authority shall convene the meeting under subsection (1) after giving at least fifteen days prior notice to all the existing members of the Gram Panchayat."
As per this provision thus, after the prescribed authority receives a notice from at least one-third of the existing members of the Panchayat, would convene the meeting under sub-section (1) "after giving at least 15 days prior notice to all the existing members of the Gram Panchayat".
[10] One more provision which may be referred to is, Sub-section (6) of Section 23 which provides that if the motion for removal of a Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan is not carried out by the majority of the existing members of the Gram Panchayat, no subsequent meeting for the removal of the same Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan shall be convened within a year of the previous meeting.
[11] Section 23 of the Panchayat Act thus empowers the elected members of the Panchayat to remove a Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan by passing a motion of no confidence. The procedure for carrying such motion is also laid down under Section 23. To begin with no meeting for such purpose would be convened unless a request is made in writing by at least one-third of the existing members of the Panchayat. Notice of convening a meeting would be issued as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 23 and such meeting would be convened after giving at least 15 days prior notice to all existing members of the Panchayat. The requirement of convening a valid meeting in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 23 thus is that the prescribed authority has given at least 15 days prior notice to all existing members of the Panchayat. This statutory and mandatory requirement cannot be diluted by reading such requirement as only issuance of a notice which is clear 15 days before the date of holding the meeting. The issuance of notice and service of the notice on the member of the Panchayat are two vastly different matters. If we accept the contention of the counsel for the review petitioners, a prescribed authority in a given case, may issue the notice clear 15 days before the date of the meeting but they served such notice to the members of the Panchayat only a day before the date of the meeting. This is not the intention of the Legislature. We have referred to the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 23 of the Act in addition to referring to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) thereof in order to emphasize that removal of a Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan of a Panchayat is a serious matter. The procedure laid down in Section 23 must be strictly followed. Once the motion for removal of a Pradhan or Upa-pradhan fails, no meeting can be convened again within one year to remove the same Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan.
[12] In tune with Section 23 of the Panchayat Act, Rule 5 of the Tripura Panchayats (Administration) Rules, 1994 lays down the procedure for removal of a Pradhan or Upa-pradhan and members of the Panchayat. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that on receipt of a notice in Form-2 signed by at least one third of the existing members of a Gram Panchayat, District Panchayat Officer shall convene a meeting for removal of a Pradhan under Section 23. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 envisages leading of the motion of removal and discussion thereon by the members of the Panchayat before the motion is put to work.
[13] What is required under sub-section (3) of Section 23 thus is service of notice of convening a special meeting for transacting the business of no confidence motion against the Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan on members of the Panchayat prior to at least 15 days of the date of the meeting.
[14] In the result, review petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.