Latest News
Back
Document:
Whether the section 15(1) of Assam Panchayat Act is violating or not?
In the case of Maksus Ahmed Laskar vs The State Of Assam And 15 Ors, in this writ appeal has tested the goal dated July 11, 2019 passed in the extraordinary gathering of Satkarakandi Gaon Panchayat under Sonai Anchalik Panchayat in the area of Cachar. The respondent individuals from the said Panchayat as needed under Section 15(2) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 served an order notice dated June 11, 2019 to the current candidate looking for a unique gathering to talk about the no certainty movement against the solicitor. The Secretary of the said Gaon Panchayat set the said demand notice dated June 11, 2019 preceding the candidate who recognized something very similar by putting the word 'seen'. Be that as it may, without fixing any date subsequently supporting something similar for holding the said unique gathering.
There upon the Secretary of the said Gaon Panchayat vide his office Memo dated June 14, 2019 composed a suggestion to the applicant illuminating with regards to the said demand notice dated June 11, 2019 further putting the note that the gathering is needed to be held inside 15 days from the help of the said notice on the President. The solicitor commented as 'hang tight for arrangement' and in like manner no gathering was assembled inside the specified time of 15 days under Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.
After expiry of the 15 days limit on June 27, 2019, the Secretary of the said Gaon Panchayat alluded the order to the President, Sonai Anchalik Panchayat with an insinuation to the Block Development Officer, Sonai Development Block. In that the Secretary looked for the imperative endorsement to fix the date for holding the uncommon gathering against the order notice July 11, 2019. The President of Sonai Anchalik Panchayat gave notice July 5, 2019 illuminating all worried to go to the gathering on july 11, 2019 to examine the no certainty movement against the writ solicitor. A duplicate of the said notice was served on the writ solicitor looking for his participation.
July 11, 2019, the candidate presented an application for dismissal of the gathering. Nonetheless, the gathering was hung on July 11, 2019 and according to the confirmation of the records delivered by Mr. Nath, secret polling form casting a ballot was utilized whereafter the goal of no certainty movement against the applicant was passed.
On examination of the records, I don't discover any infringement of the standard practice coordinated to be continued in an extraordinary gathering assembled for conversation of no certainty movement. The learned advice for the applicant reasonably presents that however he has complaints in the procedural angles yet it is the dispute that the solicitor held the principal meeting on Feb 22, 2019 and from there on before culmination of the a half year time frame the demand for no certainty movement was started on July 11, 2019.
As needs be it is the reasonable accommodation of the learned insight for the solicitor that however there are no particular bar in bringing a no certainty movement inside the initial a half year anyway the candidate is needed to allow an opportunity to proceed as the President of the said Gaon Panchayat. Mr. Nath unequivocally protested the accommodation made by Mr. Barbhuiya on the ground that an obligation was given on the candidate a role as the President of the said Gaon Panchayat to give endorsement for the said unique gathering to examine the no certainty movement.
Not just once, on two events the President on his own volition abused the required arrangements as specified under Section 15 (1) of the said Act of 1994. It is likewise presented by Mr. Nath that as needed under Section 15(2) of the Act, 1994, which is compulsory in nature, the demand notice was served on the solicitor and the ensuing demonstration and deeds needed to be performed under the rule, the candidate neglected to do and in like manner it adds up to waiver of his appropriate for support even in the exceptional gathering from there on.
Mr. Choudhury then again depended the Division Bench choice by this Hon'ble Court in Mosira Bibi versus Province of Assam and Ors. revealed in 2006(4) GLT 460. In a comparable issue before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court it was held as follows. The time table given in Section 15(1) of the Act is in light of a legitimate concern for president and/or Vice President all things considered, of the Goan Panchayat against whom the notification of no certainty is given and consequently it very well may be postponed by such president and Vice President.
The appealing party having kept away from to satisfy its commitment under Section 15 (1) of supporting the proposition presented by the secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to assemble the unique gathering to talk about the no certainty movement, deferred the necessity of holding the gathering inside seven days by the Anchalik Panchayat, regardless of whether such prerequisite is treated as required in nature.
The writ ward of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution isn't planned to work with the litigant, who has deliberately kept away from to follow the necessity of law. The proportion set down, it very well may be presumed that time span referenced in Section 15 (1) of the Act of 1994 is in light of a legitimate concern for the President/Vice-President of the Panchayat as the case might be of a Gaon Panchayat. On the off chance that both of the two being President or Vice-President stayed away from to satisfy its commitment under Section 15(1) supporting the proposition presented by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to assemble the unique gathering to talk about the no certainty movement it adds up to waiver of the prerequisite of holding the gathering inside the ensuing 7 days by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat.
However in the current case close by, a weak accommodation was made by Mr. Barbhuiya in regards to holding of the gathering past the time of 7 days by the President, Anchalik Panchayat but since of the proportion the said accommodation can't be acknowledged. It does not discover any legitimacy in this writ request which stands dismissed and send back the records.
“This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further,despite all efforts that have been made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, Legal Xpress shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.”
Document:
