The Tripura High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the declaration dated 24.09.2021 by which the petitioners were disqualified from the membership of Gram Panchayat for violation of party whip. A division bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice (Acting) and Arindam Lodh held that it is essential to communicate party whip prior to the commencement of the election process. Mere reading loudly of the whip does not come within the purview of the Tripura Panchayat Act (“the Act”).
Brief Facts:
The present writ petition was filed for quashing the declarations dated 20.09.2021 issued by respondent no. 3 along with the illegal papers and references of respondent no. 4 and for allowing the petitioners to work as Members of West Kuchainala Gram Panchayat.
The facts of the case were that due to dissatisfaction with the works and activities of Pradhan in the execution of the development works of gram panchayat, the petitioners being a majority of six members out of nine, proposed to remove the Pradhan and accordingly, respondent no. 2, District Panchayat Officer held a meeting on 23.04.2021 and thereby, on being found a majority of the petitioners decided for removal of the Pradhan.
Thereafter, by a memorandum dated 14.09.2021, respondent no. 3 sought for some clarification from the petitioners herein, the reply of which had been submitted by the petitioners on 20.09.2021 stating inter alia that there was no whip/direction in the hands of the petitioners, but suddenly on 24.09.2021, respondent no. 3 issued a Declaration declaring that the petitioners have earned disqualification and ceased to be a gram panchayat members. It is the further case of the petitioner that prior to the meeting dated 23.04.2021, no Whip or direction was served upon the petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that mere reading of the party whip cannot substitute the communication of the party whip to the elected members of the gram panchayat. He further argued that since the whip was not served upon the petitioners prior to the commencement of the election process, the ceasing of the membership of the petitioners cannot sustain as per law. According to the petitioner’s Counsel, a party whip must have been served on the petitioners before the commencement of the election proceedings and their disqualification.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the petitioners had violated the party whip by casting their votes. He further submitted that since the petitioners had violated the party whip they had earned disqualification under Section 16 of the act.
Observations of the Court:
This Court, after referring to all the relevant sections and rules, came to the conclusion that it is essential to communicate party whip prior to the commencement of the election process. Mere reading loudly of the whip does not come within the purview of the said Act and Rules. Further, it was noticed that there is no evidence on record that any written intimation of the party whip was ever served upon any of the petitioners. It was seen that the Presiding Officer had loudly read out the party whip to the petitioners in terms of Section 16 of the Act and Rule 27 of the said Rules. However, as per the rules, no duty is cast upon the Presiding Officer to read out the party whip to the members before proceeding. His only duty is to conduct the election.
From the above analysis, it was held that the disqualification of the petitioners from being members of the Gram Panchayat is disproportionate to the default committed by the respondents under Section 16 of the Act and Rule 27 of the Rules. Thus, the impugned declaration dated 24.09.2021 was quashed and set aside.
The decision of the Court:
The Tripura High Court quashed the declaration dated 24.09.2021 issued by respondent no. 3 disqualifying the petitioners from the membership of West Kachuinala Gram Panchayat for violation of party whip.
Case Title: Shri Gautam Das vs State of Tripura
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice (Acting) and Arindam Lodh
Case no.: W.P.(C) 929/2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: - Mr. N. Das
Advocate for the Respondents: - Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, GA, and Mr. S. Saha
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments