WP(C) 5849/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA The legality and validity of no confidence motion dated 09.12.2009 passe d against the President, writ petitioner herein of No. 58 Pirerchak Gaon Panchay at is under challenge wherein various questions of irregularities including viol ation of section 18(5) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter, ’the Act’) in passing the no confidence motion by the elected members of the aforesaid Gao n Panchayat have been raised and refuted in the pleadings which is required to b e answered by this court in the writ proceeding. 2. This is the third round of litigation between the parties relating to th e no confidence motion against the writ petitioner and in the instant writ petit ion as many as 9 (nine) parties have been arrayed as party respondents, whereof, respondent no. 7, the Block Development Officer and Ex-Officio Secretary, South Karimganj Development Block and South Karimganj Anchalik Panchayat and the resp ondent no. 9, Sri Mukla Lal Roy, Vice-President Pirerchak Gaon Panchayat have co ntested the case by filing their respective affidavits which would be dealt with at the appropriate stage and hence a brief fact of the case is narrated hereund er- The writ petitioner was elected as President of No. 58 Pirerchak Gaon Pa nchayat in the election held in the year 2008 alongwith 9 members whereof the re spondent no. 9 was elected as Vice-President. A no-confidence motion was raised against the petitioner vide requisition dated 02.06.2009 wherein a notice as req uired under section 15 of the Act was issued for holding the said meeting on 03. 07.2009 which was, however, under challenge before this court being WP(C) No. 25 12/09. The said writ petition came up for consideration on 29.06.2009 wherein th e court issued notice returnable in 3 weeks and in the interim, pending further consideration, this court directed that, resolution passed in the meeting, if an y, should not be given effect to before the versions of the requisitionists is c onsidered by the court. On receipt of the aforesaid order dated 29.06.2009 passe d by this court, the President of the South Karimganj Anchalik Panchayat cancell ed the holding of no confidence motion vide order dated 01.07.2009 which culmina ted in filing of an application for modification of the order dated 29.06.2009 a nd accordingly the said application came up for consideration on 29.07.2009 wher eby the court while disposing the writ petition, directed the requisition of not ice of no-confidence dated 02.06.2009 brought by some of the members to be broug ht to the notice of the petitioner by the Secretary of the aforesaid Gaon Pancha yat as provided under section 15 of the Act and to follow appropriate action the reafter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 3. Thereafter two requisitions of no confidence motion against the petition er were taken up on 13.08.2009 whereon a notice was issued on 02.09.2009 by the President of South Karimganj Anchalik Panchayat fixing 08.09.2009 for holding sp ecial meeting of no confidence motion which, however, failed in absence of the P resident of South Karimganj Anchalik Panchayat and the Vice-President who was au thorized to conduct the meeting. Once again the President of South Karimganj Anc halik Panchayat issued a notice on 09.10.2009 fixing 19.10.2009 for holding the special meeting to discuss the no confidence motion but the said meeting also fa iled due to absence of the President of South Karimganj Anchalik Panchayat and p andemonium created by the members of the Gaon Panchayat which culminated in fili ng of another writ petition before this court being WP (C) No. 4725/2009. 4. The court on the pleadings and the submissions so made disposed of the w rit petition vide its order dated 06.11.2009 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj to hold a Special General Meeting of the Gaon Panchayat as expeditious ly as possible preferably within 30.11.2009 against which a review application b eing Review Petition No. 122/2009 was filed seeking the review of the order dart ed 06.11.2009 which was allowed on 19.11.2009 directing the petitioner herein to act upon the no-confidence motion requisitioned on the date fixed i.e on 25.11. 2009 and accordingly the petitioner accorded the approval to convene the special meeting of no-confidence fixing the date of special meeting on 09.12.2009. Ther eafter the no confidence meeting was held on 09.12.2009 as scheduled and a resol ution was passed expressing no- confidence against the petitioner which is under challenge in the instant writ proceeding. 5. Mr.A.M.Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Md.Giasuddin learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the special meeting hel d on 09.12.2009 is required to be interfered with on the following grounds.; i) The special meeting for no confidence held on 09.12.2009 is vitiated due to non-compliance of section 18(5) of the Act since non use of secret ballot vi tiates no-confidence motion as has been held by this court in the case of Forhan a Begum Laskar Vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2009) 3 GLT 575 (FB); ii) The special meeting was illegally conducted by three (3) other Gaon Panc hayat Secretary in order to rig the special meeting in contravention of the prov isions of the Act; iii) The enquiry on petitioners representation dated 10.12.2009 would disclos e that there were large scale irregularities committed in the aforesaid special meeting, more particularly one (1) member has voted for 4 (four) other members a nd there was no officer with magisterial power for smooth conducting of the meet ing. 6. An affidavit -in-opposition has been filed by the respondent no. 7, the BDO and Ex-officio Secretary, South Karimganj Development Block and South Karimg anj Anchalik Panchayat. In the aforesaid affidavit-in-opposition, respondent No. 7 has supported the case of the petitioner contending that there is violation of Section 18(5) of the Act in conducting the Special Meeting. It has also been co ntended that an enquiry being made as per direction of the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.7 has found that large scale irregularities have been committed in conducting the said meeting. 7. On the otherhand, refuting all the allegations made in the Writ Petitio n, respondent No. 9 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. Further, learned couns el appearing on behalf of respondent No.9 would contend that the special meeting was held in due compliance of the provisions of the Act. In the said meeting ni ne(9) members including respondent No. 9 were present by putting signature in the Attendance Register and the meeting was presided over by respondent No.9 as per provision of the Panchayat Act wherein a decision was taken to decide the no confidence motion by secret vote and accordingly the ballot papers were suppl ied by the respondent No.8 and all the 9 members present in the meeting were c alled to collect the ballot paper individually by putting their signatures and accordingly only 7 members collected and cast their votes individually maintai ning complete secrecy .Two members, namely, Faizuddin and Abdul Khalil neither collected the ballot paper nor cast their votes and both of them remained in the meeting till the meeting was over without raising any objection . The counting was conducted by the respondent No.8 in presence of all the 9 members and after counting, it was found that 7 members cast their votes in favour of no confiden ce motion while no vote was cast against no confidence motion. It has further be en contended that three Gaon Panchayat secretaries were present as they were dir ected by each of the Panchayat President to do their official duties. The affida vit-in-opposition would disclose that no enquiry was held by respondent No.7 as ordered, rather the enquiry officer obtained signatures of some persons in blank papers and he himself prepared the statements of those persons and submitted hi s report to the Deputy Commissioner by misusing the official position to facilit ate the writ petitioner to remain as President of the Panchayat being influenced on extraneous consideration. Referring to the statements made on oath by the respondent No.9 as state d hereinabove, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.9 has submitted t hat since 7 (seven) members cast their votes in favour of the no-confidence moti on, no interference is called for in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Considered the arguments advanced by the contesting parties. Perused the relevant records. The facts pleaded in the case would revolve in a narrow compa ss as to whether the matter was decided by secret ballot as required under secti on 18(5) of the Act as well as, as to whether there was irregularities committed during the special meeting as contended by the petitioner and the respondent no . 7 and is required to be interfered with the special meeting held on 09.12.2009 where no confidence motion against the writ petitioner was passed. The record produced by the learned state Counsel as well as by the learn ed counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.9 would reveal that secret ballo t was put into service in the meeting. It also revealed that seven members have cast votes in favour of no confidence motion and no irregularities were committe d in the special meeting. 9. The question of compliance with the provisions of section 18(5) of the A ct came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this court in the case of Farhana Begum Laskar(supra) wherein it has been held that non-use of secret ball ot vitiated the no-confidence motion. In the instant case secret ballot was used in no confidence meeting in compliance of the provisions of Section 18(5) of th e Act and there is no violation of the provisions of the Act and no confidence m otion was rightly been held. Therefore, no interference is called for in the ins tant writ petition. 10. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. The resolution passed on 0 9.12.2009 by the members of 58 Pirerchak Gaon Panchayat do not require to be int erfered with. Resolution passed on 09.12.2009 by the members of 58 Pirerchak Gao n Panchayat was valid and legal against the writ petitioner. The parties are lef t to bear their own costs.