WP(C) 5021/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr RP Sarmah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms MH Phukan, the learned counsel for the Municipal Administration and Mr J Roy, the learned counsel for the private respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by her removal from the post of President of Dhakua khana Town Committee by the private respondents. In the election for the post o f Ward Commissioners of Dhakuakhana Town Committee held in August, 2009, she was declared elected as Ward Commissioner from Ward No. 3 of the Town Committee. T he Town Committee consists of four elected members with a local MP and a local M LA as the Ex-Officio Members. There is no dispute that both the ex-officio memb ers have voting rights in the election for the post of the President of Dhakuakh ana Town Committee is exclusively reserved for Woman Commissioner. The petitione r was elected as the Chairperson of the said Town Committee by the Ward Commissi oners on 14.09.2009. On 01.09.2010, she came to know from the people of the loc ality that a no confidence motion had been initiated and passed against her on 3 1.08.2010 by the Ward Commissioners. She claims that she was never informed abo ut the no confidence motion initiated against her on 31.08.2010. The principal contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that she was never given an y opportunity, much less, reasonable opportunity, of hearing before the no confi dence motion was put into vote, which is violative of the principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, the impugned resolution was also passed a gainst the basic spirits of the provisions of Section 28(2)43 and 45(A) of the A ssam Municipal Act, 1956. This is how this writ petition came to be filed by he r. The writ petition is resisted by the State respondents as well as the private re spondents, who have filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition. The private respondents supported by the State respondents deny the allegations of the peti tioner that she was never informed about the impending no confidence motion move d against her and in fact she was concealing the requisition notice submitted to her through the dealing Clark attached to her. The private respondents also as sert that they were constrained to file caveat before this Court as they apprehe nded that the petitioner, on coming to know of the requisition notice, might app roach this Court for staying the requisition notice. These are the sum and subs tance of the cases projected by the State respondents and the private respondent s respectively. Due to the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties about the re ceipt or otherwise of the requisition notice by the petitioner, it has become di fficult for this Court to adjudicate on this issue inasmuch as to the determinat ion of such issue cannot be made in the absence of oral as well as documentary e vidence. Be that as it may, both the counsel appearing for the petitioner and t he private respondents have fairly accepted the suggestion from the Court that t he dispute as to who is commanding the majority in the Town Committee is best de cided on the floor of the Town Committee itself. If the petitioner does not com mand majority contrary to her claim, she has no business to cling on to the post of the Chairperson of the Town Committee. Conversely, if she commands majority , there is no reason why she should not be allowed to remain as the Chairperson of the Town Committee despite the opposition of the private respondents who by t hemselves cannot constitute majority. Similarly, if the private respondents dem onstrably enjoy the support of majority in the Town Committee, they may elect a Chairperson of their choice. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I dispose of this writ petition by issuing the following directions : 1) The requisition notice dated 22.07.2010 signed by the private respondent s shall be treated as the requisition notice under Section 43(2) of the Assam Mu nicipal Act, 1956 and no fresh requisition notice need be issued for the purpose of holding the floor test; 2) The floor test shall be conducted by the Chairperson (petitioner herein) on 08.12.2010 at 10:30 AM at the premises of the Dhakuakhana Town Committee; 3) The Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur District or his delegate of the rank of SDO will supervise the floor test so as to ensure peaceful voting by the Ward Commissioners and the ex-officio members; 4) The Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur District or his delegate will declare the result of the proceeding and the person who commands majority will forthwit h be declared as the Chairperson of the Dhakuakhana Town Committee; 5) This order will be treated, as Special Meeting Notice, and no other noti ce will be issued for convening the aforesaid meeting. A copy of this order be furnished to Ms MH Phukan, the leaned State counsel for communication to the two ex-officio members as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur District.