M. Bhuyan, J.
1. Heard Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel representing the appellant/writ petitioner as well as Mrs. B Goyal, learned counsel representing the State respondents.
2. Challenge is made to the order dated 25.1.2016 passed in WP(C) 46/2016. Brief facts appearing is that the appellant while discharging function as the President of Hatipara Gaon Panchayat was confronted with a Requisition Notice submitted by 8 members of the said Gaon Panchayat expressing want of confidence in him. The said Requisition Notice dated 8.12.2015 was made under Section 15(2) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. On 14.12.2015, the fact of the Requisition Notice was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat.
3. The appellant preferred WP(C) 46/2016 alleging that the said Requisition Notice could not be allowed to be acted upon, inasmuch as, the same did not fulfill the requirements of the provisions under Section 15(2) of the said Act. The pin-pointed plea of the appellant was that Section 15(2) postulates that the Requisition Notice is to be delivered to the President or the Vice President, as the case may be, which however, was not done in the manner so prescribed. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, the said Requisition Notice had only been addressed and delivered to the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and not to the petitioner, although the fact of the Requisition Notice had subsequently been brought to the knowledge of the petitioner by the Secretary vide letter dated 14.12.2015.
4. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the rival submissions directed as follows:
7.After due consideration, the Panchayat members are permitted to requisition a special meeting by serving due notice upon the President/Vice President and the Panchayat Secretary of the Hatipara Gaon Panchayat. Such notice can be issued within 7 days from today and thereafter steps for convening the special meeting should be taken by the Secretary of the Panchayat, in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Sub-Section(s) of Section 15 of the Panchayat Act. The continuance of the President/Vice President of the Hatipara Gaon Panchayat would abide the vote in the special meeting. It is ordered accordingly.
5. In the present appeal, Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel representing the appellant/writ petitioner submits that no such direction could have been passed in view of the fact that the issue for adjudication was on the legality and validity of the Requisition Notice and any decision could only have been confined to that issue alone. The contention is that no further direction could have been issued giving liberty to the Panchayat members for requisitioning a fresh special meeting by serving due notice upon the petitioner and the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat.
6. In the course of hearing of this appeal and on a pointed query made by this Court, learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the appellant had no knowledge of the Requisition Notice as it was never served upon him. In this connection, Mrs. B Goyal, learned counsel representing the State respondents referred to the statements made by the petitioner at paragraph 5 of the writ petition to say that the petitioner himself had admitted of having received the Requisition Notice from the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. As such, the appellant have tendered an incorrect and false answer to the query posed by this Court.
7. Notwithstanding the above, the grievances raised by the appellant/writ petitioner with regard to the provisions under Section 15(2) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 needs to be addressed. The admitted fact is that despite the Requisition Notice dated 8.12.2015 having been addressed to the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, the same was brought to the knowledge of the appellant by the Secretary vide letter dated 14.12.2015. The fact of being informed of the Requisition Notice is also admitted by the appellant/writ petitioner at paragraph 5 of the writ petition. The issue, therefore, is as to whether a Requisition Notice made to the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and which had been brought to the knowledge of the President of the Gaon Panchayat can be construed as substantial compliance of the provisions under Section 15(2) of the aforesaid Act. This issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Habibur Rahman -vs- State of Assam reported in 2006 (suppl) GLT 218. At paragraph 16 thereof, this Court held as follows:
16. The object of the provision contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 15 of the Act is to inform the President or Vice President, as the case may be, about the requisition of a special meeting under Section 15(1) of the Act. Therefore, as soon as the President or Vice President, as the case may be, against whom the no confidence motion is brought, is delivered with a copy of such requisition for special meeting under Section 15(1) of the Act, the provision contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 15 is complied with. The said requirement would be substantially complied with if the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat delivers a copy of such requisition to the President or Vice President, as the case may be, against whom no confidence motion has been brought. The provision contained in Section 15(2) of the Act does not require that members of the Gaon Panchayat, who submitted the requisition for such a special meeting under Section 15(1) of the Act, themselves have to deliver such requisition to the President or the Vice President, as the case may be. Therefore, if such requisition or copy thereof is delivered or caused to be delivered to the President or Vice President, as the case may be, against whom no confidence motion is brought, the same will amount to substantial compliance of the provision contained in Section 15(2) of the Act.
8. Tested on the law laid down in the case of Habibur Rahman (supra), the writ petition itself did not merit consideration. However, the learned Single Judge has granted another opportunity to the appellant/writ petitioner to test his strength on the floor of the house. The said direction can, under no circumstances, be called in question. As a necessary corollary, this appeal as well as the writ petition which have been laid on the premises of violation of the provisions under Section 15(2) of the Act is wholly misconceived and cannot be entertained.
9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. No costs.