WP(C) 1856/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. A.K . Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, le arned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. M.Z. Kadir, learned counsel for the respondent s No. 4 to 13. I have also heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Additional Sr. Govt . Advocate for the State respondent. The petitioner is the chairperson of Dhubri Municipal Board. A n o-confidence motion was brought against the petitioner by 9 Ward Commissioner as against 18 Ward Commissioners of the Municipal Board (16 elected and 2 Ex-offic io). As per the relevant rules, if no-confidence motion is brought by half of th e Ward Commissioners, which in the instant case is 9, the chairperson is to be r emoved. In the instant case, while it is the case of the respondents No. 4 to 13 that half of the Ward Commissioners i.e. 9 voted against the petitioner , but it is the case of the petitioner that one of the Ward Commissioners namely Smt. Tulshi Tior (respondent No. 10), could not have voted against the petition er on 13.3.2008 as she was no longer a Ward Commissioner in view of the fact tha t she had resigned as Ward Commissioner by submitting letter of resignation on 2 5.2.2008 and the same was accepted on 13.3.2008. Said Smt. Tulshi Tior by her representation dated 6.3.2008 dispu ted that she had resigned as Ward Commissioner by the aforesaid letter dated 25. 2.2008. Having regard to the controversy, in the earlier round of litigation i.e . writ petition being WP(C) No. 1395/2008 disposed of on 10.4.2008, it was provi ded that the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri district shall resolve the issue by hea ring all the interested parties. After the matter was remanded back, the Deputy Commissioner foun d it difficult to ascertain as to whether in the letter of resignation dated 25. 2.2008, said Tulshi Tior (respondent No. 10) had put her signature. In other wor ds, he could not decide as to whether the signature appearing in the letter of r esignation dated 25.2.2008 was that of Tulshi Tior as the same was disputed by h er. In the order dated 30.4.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, the submission made on behalf of Smt. Tulshi Tior was recorded. As per t he said submission, Smti. Tulshi Tior was convinced that her signature in the re signation letter dated 25.2.2008 was forged. The main issue before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri was as to whether the signature appearing in the letter dated 25.2.2008 was that of Smti. Tulshi Tior or the same was a forged one. Situated thus, he referred the matter to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam, Guwahati and in the interim it was provided that the petitioner would continue as the Chairperson of the Bo ard without any administrative or financial power. When there was delay in decid ing the matter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties a report was called for from the Forensic Science Laboratory. Today, Ms. R. Chakrbaorty, learned Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate , Assam has produced the report furnished by the Laboratory. As per the said rep ort, the signature appearing in the resignation letter dated 25.2.2008 on being compared with other signatures of Smt. Tulshi Tior is found to be that of Smti. Tulshi Tior. Thus, the doubt relating to the signature of Smt. Tior appearing in the letter of resignation dated 25.2.2008 no longer survives. If the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is to be accepted, then the signature of Smt. Tu lshi Tior appearing in the resignation letter dated 25.2.2008 is her own signatu re and is not a forged one. Thus, the issue, which stand on the way of the Deput y Commissioner, Dhubri to decide the matter has been resolved. Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respond ents No. 4 to 13 submits that even it is held that the signature appearing in th e resignation letter dated 25.2.2008 is that of Smt. Tulshi Tior (respondent No. 10) then also as per the provision of Section 27 of the Assam Municipal Act, 19 56, the resignation submitted by the respondent No. 10 i.e. Smti. Tulshi Tior is not acceptable. Suffice is to say that the resignation submitted by Smt. Tulshi Tior is already accepted by letter dated 7.3.2008 and the same is not under cha llenge in this proceeding. Thus, no opinion is expressed in this regard. Moreove r, as contended by Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is the in tention which matters and not the foundation made or procedural irregularities, even if any in the mater of resignation voluntarily offered and accepted. The matter shall now go back to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri to pass appropriate order on the basis of this findings based on the aforesaid f inding of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Forensic Science Laboratory repor t shall be furnished to the Deputy Commissioner immediately alongwith the copy o f this order. Ms. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel may be furnished with a c opy of this order for her necessary follow up action. The Deputy Commissioner, D hubri on receipt of the copy of this order as well as the Forensic Science Labor atory report shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law within 7 days t hereafter. Writ petition is disposed of.