Summary
The Union Territory’s MP, an ex-officio Panchayat Samiti member, counted towards the quorum and could participate and vote on a no-confidence motion under the governing Andaman and Nicobar scheme. Restricting election of the Pramukh to directly elected members did not impose the same restriction on removal. With six total members, four were required for quorum; attendance by only three justified dissolution. The subsequent removal and replacement election were invalid, and Seema Sarkar was restored.
Issues
- Whether the MP counted towards quorum and could vote on a no-confidence motion.
- Whether restrictions on electing the Pramukh also governed removal.
- Whether the consequential removal and replacement election could stand.
Provisions considered
- Article 243C(3)–(5), Constitution of IndiaDistinguished representation, voting rights and election of the chairperson; constitutional silence on removal did not override the express statutory scheme. (¶¶ 11–15, 18–20, 26–30)
- Sections 107, 112 and 117, Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994Ex-officio membership and voting rights continued in no-confidence proceedings despite the separate restriction on electing the Pramukh. (¶¶ 16–20, 24–26)
- Rules 9(3)(b) and 21, Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats Administration) Rules, 1997Required at least two-thirds of total membership for the special meeting; all members, including the MP, counted. Absence of quorum within an hour required dissolution. (¶¶ 21–26, 33)
Held
- The restriction to directly elected members for election of the Pramukh did not itself exclude ex-officio members from removal proceedings. The express no-confidence provisions governed; their validity was not under challenge. (¶¶ 18–20, 26, 30–32)
- Total membership for special-meeting quorum included the Section 107(3) members. The MP was also entitled to discuss and vote on the motion; reading in a directly-elected-members-only restriction would rewrite the provisions. (¶¶ 24–26, 28–29)
- Little Andaman’s six-member body required four for quorum. Only three attended, so the Executive Officer correctly dissolved the meeting and the motion could not proceed. (¶¶ 25, 33)
- The consequential removal and election, expressly subject to this appeal’s outcome, were non est. Restoration to the Pramukh post and prompt administrative compliance were required. (¶ 34–36)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. Division Bench judgment set aside and respondent 6’s writ petition dismissed. Executive Officer’s dissolution upheld; consequential steps invalidated. Appellant restored as Pramukh, with district administration to comply within one week of receipt and report to the Supreme Court Registry.