Summary
The Supreme Court restored the no-confidence resolution against a Gaon Panchayat President, setting aside the High Court’s orders invalidating the meeting for procedural defects. The President knowingly participated in the meeting and challenged its convening procedure only after losing the vote. In the circumstances, the statutory condition existed for her benefit and no public interest was affected, so she had waived it. The Court directed the competent authority to implement the resolution’s consequences.
Issues
- Whether participation in the no-confidence meeting waived the procedural objection concerning its convening and presiding authority.
- Whether the resolution should remain invalid despite that participation and the absence of affected public interest.
Provisions considered
- Section 15(1), Assam Panchayat Act, 1994The Court considered the prescribed sequence for convening a no-confidence meeting and the Deputy Commissioner’s power to depute an eligible gazetted officer to preside when unable to do so. It upheld the resolution on waiver in the particular circumstances, rather than recognising a general delegation power to the BDO to convene meetings. (¶¶ 8–9, 11–14)
Held
- The statutory procedure required the Deputy Commissioner, at the relevant stage, to convene the meeting within the prescribed period; an eligible gazetted officer could be deputed to preside in the Commissioner’s inability. The High Court had invalidated the resolution because the meeting was convened and presided over by the BDO without the required authorisation. (¶¶ 4–5, 8–9)
- The resolution on record showed that the President attended and signed at the meeting, which was held to consider the no-confidence motion. Nine members voted for the motion and one against. Her participation was material to whether the resolution could be discarded for the procedural defect. (¶ 11–12)
- A mandatory requirement ordinarily calls for strict compliance, but a statutory condition for an individual’s benefit or interest can be waived where no public interest is involved. On these facts, the President knowingly participated and challenged the procedure after losing; she had waived the condition precedent. The Court expressly distinguished the situation had she not participated. (¶ 13)
- The appeal was allowed, both High Court orders were set aside and the resolution was treated as valid. The competent authority was directed to give effect to its consequences, with no order as to costs. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court orders set aside, no-confidence resolution upheld and implementation directed. No costs.