Luthfa Begum Laskar vs State Of Assam And Ors

K.R. Surana, J

1) Heard Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. RKD Choudhury, learned Addl. Senior Govt. advocate for respondent no.2, Mr.

M. Nath, learned standing counsel for the P&RD Department for respondent nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. PN Goswami, learned counsel for the

respondent nos. 9 to 17. None appears on call for respondent nos. 3, 7 and 8.

2) Bereft of details, it would be sufficient for the purpose of this order to narrate the brief facts of the case of the appellants in W.A. 200/2020. The

appellant was the elected President of 9 No. Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat. The respondent nos. 9 to 17, who are the members of the said Gaon

Panchayat had moved a motion of no confidence against the appellant. By a resolution dated 21.08.2020 for removal of the appellant as President of

the said Gaon Panchayat was taken in the meeting of the said Gaon Panchayat. The aggrieved appellant moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.

3411/2020 to challenge the said resolution, amongst others, on the ground that it is vitiated by irregularities and was in violation of the requirements of

section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 by projecting that under section 15(i) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 the President was entitled to

at least 15 (fifteen) days time to give approval for a meeting of no confidence against her, but even before expiry of the said period, the Secretary of

the 9 No. Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat had moved the President of Sonai Anchalik Panchayat under second paragraph of section 15(i) of the said

1994 Act. As per order dated 08.09.2020, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 9 to 17 had made a statement that there is a possibility that the

procedural requirement of section 15(i) may not have been followed and upon instructions, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 9 to 17 had

prayer to allow him to withdraw the resolution dated 21.08.2020 by which the appellant had been removed from the post of 9 No. Sonabarighat Gaon

Panchayat, which having not been objected to, was allowed by this Court by the impugned order dated 08.09.2020, declaring the resolution dated

21.08.2020 to be null and void. It was also provided that as the resolution has not been defeated, but it is a case where it has not been pressed upon by

the respondents, resulting in its withdrawal, view was expressed by the learned Judge of this Court that the respondent nos. 9 to 17 are entitled to

proceed in any manner as they may be advised under the law.

3) The appellant had filed an application for review of the order dated 08.09.2020 and the learned Single Judge by order dated 15.10.2020 passed in

Review Pet No. 91/2020 “4. … when there is a declaration that the resultant resolution passed in such motion is null and void, it has to be

understood that the motion was lost. When the motion was lost, the consequence of the other relevant provisions of law including that there cannot be

a further no confidence motion again within a period of 6 (six) months would also be applicable.â€​

4) The aforesaid order dated 08.09.2020 was challenged by the respondent nos. 9 to 17 by filing an intra-Court appeal, which was registered as W.A.

No. 152/2020 and the coordinate Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 24.11.2020, allowed the said writ appeal and set aside the

order dated 15.10.2020 passed in Review Pet. No. 91/2020 by clarifying that since the resolution dated 21.08.2020 passed the no- confidence motion

cannot be said to have been “lost†within the meaning of section 15(i) of the Act, the bar in bringing no- confidence motion against the President

within six months thereof will not apply.

5) The appellant has now filed this intra-Court appeal against the order dated 08.09.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.

3411/2020, thereby allowing the respondent nos. 9 to 17 to withdraw the resolution dated 21.08.2020 by which the appellant was ousted from the

office of the President of 9 No. Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat.

6) The power of review is exercised in consonance with the provisions of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the opinion of the

Court, if a review is granted, the decree of order of the Court stands modified. In that situation, the review petition cannot be treated as a

supplemental proceeding as envisaged under Part-VI of CPC containing sections 94 and 95 CPC, as such, the original decree or order does not get

revived if the decree or order granting review is set aside. If one needs an authority on the point, the case of Rekha Mukherjee Vs. Ashis Kumar Das,

(2005) 3 SCC 427 (para-32) may be referred to.

7) In view of the said finding, the Court is of the opinion that the review order dated 15.10.2020 in Review Pet. No. 91/2020 had got merged with the

judgment and order dated 08.09.2020 rendered in W.P.(C) No. 3411/2020. On the order of review being set aside by judgment and order dated

24.11.2020, passed by the co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 152/2020, the appeal against the judgment and order dated 08.09.2020

is held to be not maintainable on facts and in law.

8) This legal position can be examined in another manner. Assuming that the appeal against the order dated 08.09.2020 is entertained and decided in

favour of the appellants by holding that the no-confidence motion was “lostâ€, in that even it would operate contrary to the ratio laid down by the

coordinate Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 152/2020, wherein it was held that since the resolution dated 21.08.2020 passed the no-confidence

motion cannot be said to have been “lost†within the meaning of section 15(i) of the Act, the bar in bringing no- confidence motion against the

President within six months thereof will not apply.

9) Therefore, in view of the discussions above, this appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable.