1    

REPORTABLE  

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4677 OF 2018  (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 33637 of 2017)  

Padmini Singha       …Appellant(s)    

Versus    

The State of Assam & Others          …Respondent(s)    

J U D G M E N T      

Dipak Misra, CJI    

On 30.01.2014, the appellant along with seven members of  

Masughat Gaon Panchayat submitted a No Confidence Motion  

against the President, respondent no. 6 herein, and for  

requisition of a special meeting to prove the majority of Gaon  

Panchayat President as per Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat  

Act, 1994 (for brevity, „the Act‟). On 15.02.2014, the Secretary,  

Masughat Gaon Panchayat forwarded the said requisition to the  

President, Borkhola Anchalik Panchayat stating therein that the  

matter had already been put up before the President, Masughat

2    

Gaon Panchayat on 07.02.2014 for taking necessary action but  

she asked to wait due to some legal complications. Since the  

stipulated period of calling a special meeting was over, the  

petition was being referred for taking necessary action as per  

provisions of the Act.  By virtue of letter dated 26.02.2014, the  

Block Development Officer (BDO), Borkhola Development Block  

referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar  

stating that he had already put the matter before the President of  

the concerned Panchayat on 20.02.2014;  that she stated to wait  

and that since the stipulated period for calling a special meeting  

was over, the matter was being referred to him for taking  

necessary action as per the Act.   

2.  On 17.03.2014, the Additional Deputy Commissioner,  

Cachar, Silchar sent a communication to the BDO, Borkhola  

Development Block which is as follows:-  

“No. CDO.1/2014/11 Dated, Silchar,  

the 17th March, 2014  

To,  

The Block Development Officer,  Borkhola Development Block.    Sub. Special Meeting of No Confidence  Motion against the President Masughat GP.  

3    

Ref.BDE/E-11/92-98/Pt.II/AP  Establishment, Dated   

        26-02-2014     I am to return herewith the proposal  submitted by you for convening a special  meeting of No Confidence Motion against  the G.P. President Masughat G.P. and  request you to take necessary action as per  provision laid down in the Assam Panchayat  Raj Act, 1994 Sec. 15(1).      The extract copy of relevant portion of  the said Act Sec. 15(1) is enclosed herewith  for favour of your kind necessary action.    Encl: As stated above A.R. Sheikh, ACS          Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Dev.)                Chchar, Silchar”  

 3. In compliance of the above communication, on 21.03.2014,  

the BDO wrote to the President, Masughat Gaon Panchayat  

informing her to attend the special meeting of No Confidence to  

be convened on 31.03.2014 at 12:30 p.m. in the office of the  

BDO.  On 31.03.2014, the meeting was presided over by BDO.  In  

the meeting, nine members cast their votes in favour of the No  

Confidence Motion and one member cast vote against the No  

Confidence Motion.  Thus, the President, respondent no. 6  

herein, lost her Presidentship and the Vice President, appellant  

herein, was directed to function as incharge President of the  

concerned Panchayat for the time being.  

4    

4. Being aggrieved by the passing of the No Confidence Motion  

against her, the respondent no. 6 herein filed a writ petition,  

being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2051 of 2014, before the Gauhati  

High Court. In the writ petition, she challenged the legal  

acceptability and validity of the resolution expressing want of  

confidence against her in a special meeting held on 31.03.2014.  

The learned single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment and  

order dated 09.08.2016, allowed the writ petition on the ground  

that vide letter dated 17.03.2014, the Deputy Commissioner,  

instead of taking action in the matter, merely wrote back to the  

BDO to take steps in accordance with Section 15 of the Act and  

there was no delegation of authority to the BDO to preside over  

the meeting. No document had been produced showing  

delegation of authority. It was the Deputy Commissioner who  

ought to have taken steps in terms of the provisions of the Act by  

convening a meeting.  A meeting convened and presided over by  

an authority alien to the mandate postulated in Section 15 of the  

Act could not sanctify the proceeding of a meeting.  On this  

foundation, the resolution adopted expressing no confidence  

against the President was set aside and declared null and void.   

5    

5. Being grieved by the judgment and order of the learned  

single Judge, the appellant filed Writ Appeal (Civil) No. 310 of  

2016 before the Division Bench of the High Court which, by the  

impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2017, dismissed the  

Writ Appeal.  The Division Bench held that it is only the Deputy  

Commissioner who can convene the meeting within seven days  

from the date of receipt of the information and Section 15 does  

not authorize the Deputy Commissioner to delegate his power of  

convening the meeting to the BDO. The BDO can preside over the  

meeting being a Gazetted officer only when the Deputy  

Commissioner is unable to preside over the meeting  and it is so  

conveyed by him.   The appellate Bench opined that as per  

Section 15 of the Act, the meeting was to be convened by the  

Deputy Commissioner and no one else and when law provides to  

do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in  

that way or not at all.  Being of this view, it concurred with the  

opinion expressed by the learned single Judge and dismissed the  

intra court appeal.   

6. In the present appeal by special leave, the appellant has  

assailed the correctness of the impugned judgment.

6    

7. Despite service of notice, there has been no appearance. We  

have heard Mr. Pijush Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the  

appellant.  

8.  The relevant part of Section 15 reads as follows:-  

“Section 15 - No confidence motion  against the President and Vice  President:–  (1) Every President or Vice-President shall  be deemed to have vacated his office  forthwith when resolution expressing want  of confidence in him is passed by a majority  of two third of the total number of members  of the Gaon Panchayat.      Such a meeting shall be specially  convened by the Secretary of the Gaon  Panchayat with approval of the President of  the Gaon Panchayat. Such meeting shall be  presided over by the President if the motion  is against the Vice- President, and by the  Vice-President, if the motion is against the  President. In case such a meeting is not  convened within a period of fifteen days  from the date of receipt of notice, the  Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat shall  within three days, refer the matter to the  President of the concerned Anchalik  Panchayat, who shall convene the meeting  within seven days from the date of receipt of  the information from the Secretary of the  Gaon Panchayat and preside over such  meeting.        In case the President of the Anchalik  Panchayat does not take action as above,  within the specified seven days time, the  concerned Gaon Panchayat Secretary shall  inform the matter to the Deputy

7    

Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)  as the case may be within three days after  the expiry of the stipulated seven days time  and the concerned Deputy  Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (C)  shall convene the meeting within seven days  from the date of the receipt of the  information with intimation to the Zilla  Parishad and the Anchalik Panchayat and  preside over the meeting so   convened :      Provided that the concerned Deputy  Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (C) as  the case may be, in case of his inability to  preside over the meeting, may depute one  Gazetted Officer under him not below the  rank of Class-I Gazetted Officer to preside  over such meeting:      Provided further that when a non- confidence motion is lost, no such motion  shall be allowed in the next six months.”  

 9. On a plain reading of the said provision, it is crystal clear  

that the meeting has to be convened by the Deputy  

Commissioner within a stipulated time and the said authority  

has also been conferred the power to depute one Gazetted Officer  

under him not below the rank of Class I Gazetted Officer  to  

preside over the meeting.  The said situation comes into existence  

after the Deputy Commissioner is informed to convene the  

meeting. The Division Bench has observed, placing reliance on  

the communication of the Deputy Commissioner that he has not  

really convened the meeting and that apart, he has not delegated

8    

the power or authority to the BDO to preside over the meeting. It  

has been further held that the BDO at the most could have  

presided over the meeting when the Deputy Commissioner was  

unable to preside over the meeting so convened by him. But as  

the meeting was not convened, the whole thing was illegal.  

10. It may be noted that a ground has been taken in this appeal  

before us that the beneficiary, namely, the respondent no. 6, had  

attended the meeting. On a perusal of the judgment of the  

learned single Judge, we do not notice that any such assertion  

was made.  The entire discussion, as we find, relates to what is  

meant by the Deputy Commissioner by his communication dated  

17.02.2014 and further, regarding the delegation of authority to  

the BDO to preside over the meeting. The ultimate conclusion  

that has been recorded by the learned single Judge is expressed  

in para 22 of the judgment which reads thus:-  

“22. In view of the above discussions, the  resolution adopted expressing no confidence  against the petitioner is set aside and  declared null and void. But the matter does  not rest here. This Court cannot remain  oblivious of the fact that a requisition for No  Confidence Motion was given against the  petitioner and expression of no confidence  was negatived for procedural irregularities  as mentioned above and, therefore, this  Court will be failing in its duty in exercising  power under Article 226 of the Constitution

9    

of India if this Court does not direct the  petitioner to hold a meeting to decide the No  Confidence Motion brought against her.”  

 11. Interpreting Section 15 of the Act, the Division Bench  

opined that the Deputy Commissioner has not acted as provided  

under Section 15.  The resolution passed on 31.03.2014 which  

has been brought on record as Annexure P-6 records that the  

respondent no. 6 was present in the meeting and signed. In such  

a situation, the issue that emerges for consideration is whether  

the ultimate resolution of the meeting could have been discarded.  

12. To appreciate the said aspect, it is appropriate to reproduce  

the content of the resolution. It reads thus:-  

“The meeting is presided over by Shri  Kishore Baruah, BDO, Borkhola  Development Block as per Assam Panchayat  Act, 1994. At the outset of the meeting BDO  asked the Members any opinion if they  have. They replied that they want voting  then by secret ballot voting is done. Ballot  box is open at 1.30 p.m. After opening the  Ballot Box as found 9 G.P. Members casted  their votes for No-Confidence motion and 1  G.P. Member caste vote  against the No- Confidence Motion. As per Assam  Panchayat Act 2/3rd (section 15) majority of  the total G.P. members should caste votes  either in support of No-Confidence motion  or against the No-Confidence motion. In this  connection 2/3rd i.e., 7 members out of 10  members required. But after opening Ballot  Box, it is found that 9 G.P. Members casted  vote in favour of No-Confidence Motion and

10    

1 G.P. Member casted vote against the No- Confidence Motion. As a result of which Rita  Rani Dusad, President, Masughat G.P. lost  her Presidentship and as per Act, Vice  President Masughat G.P. will act and  perform and function as i/c, President,  Masughat G.P. for the time being.”  

13. From the foregoing, it is quite vivid that the meeting was  

held to discuss the Motion of No-Confidence. The respondent no.  

6 who was a beneficiary attended the meeting and voting had  

taken place.  It is well settled in law that a mandatory provision  

of law requires strict compliance but there are situations where  

even if a provision is mandatory, non-compliance would not  

result in nullification of the act. There are certain exceptions.  

One such exception is, if a certain requirement or condition is  

provided in a statute for the benefit or interest of a particular  

person, the same can be waived by him if no public interest is  

involved. The ultimate result would be valid even if the  

requirement or condition is not performed. We are disposed to  

think that in the obtaining fact situation, no public interest was  

affected. The BDO presided over the meeting and every one knew  

that the meeting was called for passing a resolution either in  

favour of or against the No Confidence Motion. The respondent  

no. 6 knowing fully well participated in the meeting and the

11    

resolution was passed against her.  After losing in the voting  

process, the assail was made to the procedure of calling the  

meeting.  We are inclined to think, had the respondent no. 6 not  

participated in the meeting, the matter would have been  

absolutely different. Having participated, it has to be held that  

the respondent no. 6 had waived the condition precedent.   

14. In view of the aforesaid premises, the appeal is allowed and  

the orders passed by the learned single Judge as well as the  

Division Bench are set aside. The resolution passed against the  

respondent no. 6 is treated as valid. The competent authority is  

directed to carry out the consequences of the resolution.  In the  

facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to  

costs.  

              .………………………….CJI.         (Dipak Misra)                       .…………………………….J.  

      (A.M. Khanwilkar)     

                   ...………………….………..J.  

                  (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)     New Delhi;   September 27, 2018