WP(C) 4993/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. J. Abedin, learned co unsel representing the respondents No. 5 to 10 and 12. Also heard Ms. R. Chokrab orty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. The petitioner who has been removed from the chairmanship of the Doboka Town Committee by way of no-confidence motion passed by the majority of Ward Com missioners, has made a challenge to the same. From the materials on record, it a ppears that the no-confidence motion was brought against the petitioner and the same was passed by majority of the Ward Commissioners on 14.06.07. Having regard to the grievance raised by the petitioner against the moti on, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Hojai, by his communication dated 17.07.0 7 addressed to the Vice-Chairman, Doboka Town Committee, Doboka requested to ho ld another no-confidence motion following the procedure laid down in Section 28 and 43 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956. Pursuant to the said letter, another no -confidence motion was held on 21.07.07 and the same was passed by a resolution adopted by the majority of the Ward Commissioners. Be it stated here that the to tal strength of Doboka Town Committee is 10 and out of that 7 members voted agai nst the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.( C) No. 3384/04 making a challenge to the earlier no-confidence motion dated 14.0 6.07. The writ petition was disposed of having noticed the subsequent no-confide nce motion passed on 21.07.07 and as the same was not under challenge. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the said no-confidence motio n. Hence this writ petition. In the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondents, it has been con tended that no-confidence motion dated 14.06.07 having been passed as per the p rovision of the Act, there could not have been any occasion for second no-confid ence motion as was directed by the S.D.O. (C), Hojai. However, the second no-con fidence motion was held on 21.07.07 in deference to the request made by the S.D .O. (C), Hojai. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that no-confidence m otion was passed on 21.07.07 and as noted above, out of total strength of Ward C ommissioners which is 10, 7 members voted against the petitioner. According to the petitioner no-confidence motion was passed on 21.07.07 in violation of Section 28 (3) of the Act. Section 28 (3) is not applicable in the instant case as the petitioner has not been removed by the State Govt. on a ccount of action or inaction stipulated in Section 28(3). The petitioner has bee n removed as per Section 28 (2) by way of passing a no-confidence motion him. When on two occasions the petitioner has been removed from Chairmanship by way of no-confidence motion, procedural irregularity even if said to be any, cannot restore the petitioner back to his position. It is an admitted position t hat the petitioner on both the occasions lost the no-confidence motion, he havin g been voted out of the chairmanship by majority of Ward Commissioners. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Conseq uently the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.