AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners claim themselves to be elected Presidents of Gaon Panchayats of Langaighat and Hasanpur respectively.
In the present petition, they have challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 15(1) and 15(5) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short "Act"). Section 15(1) of the Act reads as under:- "Every President or Vice-President shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith when resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of two third of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat. Such a meeting shall be specially convened by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat with approval of the President of the Gaon Panchayat. Such meeting shall be presided over by the President if the motion is against the Vice-President, and by the Vice-President, if the motion is against the President. In case such a meeting in not conveyed within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat shall within three days, refer the matter to the President of concerned Anchalik Panchayat, who shall convene the meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of the information from the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and preside over such meeting. In case the President of the Anchalik Panchayat does not take action as above, within the specified seven days time, the concerned Gaon Panchayat Secretary shall inform the matter to the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) as the case may be within three days after the expiry of the stipulated seven days time and the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (C) shall convene the meeting within seven days from the date of the receipt of the information with intimation to the Zilla Parishad and the Anchalik Panchayat and preside over the meeting so convened.
Provided that the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (C) as the case may be, in case of his inability to preside over the meeting, may depute one Gazetted Officer under him not below the rank of Class-I Gazetted Officer to preside over such meeting.
Provided further that when a no-confidence motion is lost, no such motion shall be allowed in the next six months."
Likewise, Section 15(5) of the Act reads as under:- "If, under sub-section (1), the members of the Gaon Panchayat express want of confidence both in the President and Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat at the same time and issue notices, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, within seven days from the date of receipt of such notices, shall report the matter to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat who shall arrange to convene the meeting within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the intimation, separately, to consider the motion against the President first and to consider the motion against the Vice-President next day and shall preside over both the meetings. The President of the concerned Anchalik Panehayat presiding the meeting shall have no vote.
In case the President of the concerned Anchalik Panehayat does not take action as above, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, within three days after the expiry of the stipulated fifteen days time, shall refer the matter to the concerned Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), as the case may be. On receipt of the information, the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, shall convene both the meetings in the manner as above, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the information with intimation to the concerned Anchalik Panchayat and Zilla Parishad and preside over such meetings.
Provided that the concerned Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, in case of his inability to preside over the meeting, may depute a Gazetted Officer not below the rank of Class-I Gazetted Officer to preside over such meeting.
Provided further that if it is not possible to hold the meeting for a situation due to non-attendance of the requisite number of members in such meeting or meetings as the case may be, the no-confidence motion shall automatically stands cancelled and motion shall be deemed to have lost, in the event of which no such motion shall be allowed within the next six month."
The main ground of challenge by the petitioners is that democratic concept is violated by providing for removal of an elected representative by a smaller and different body than the one that elected him. However, this issue has been settled against the petitioners in Mohanlal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rae Bareilly, AIR 1993 SC 2042, wherein the Supreme Court has held that democratic concept is not violated by providing for removal of an elected representative by a smaller and different body than the one that elected him.
This being the legal position, we find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.