Shri.Sibananda Bairagi v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/136/2025 Shri Sibananda Bairagi Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Ms. G. Mini .... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty,Sr.Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar .... for the Administration Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Anoushka Singh ... for the intervener March 13, 2025 [SR] Item No.3 1.

The decision of the Executive Officer to the following extent prima facie appears to be without jurisdiction and it seems that he has behaved in a partisan manner in disposing of the representation dated 13th January, 2025 :- "Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the members of the Gram Panchayat initiate a fresh noconfidence motion against the Pradhan, in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of the Panchayat Regulations and the applicable Rules. The following steps must be observed:

1.

A proper notice must be served to all concerned members, clearly specifying the date, time and venue of the meeting.

2.

The Pradhan must be given a fair opportunity to present his case and respond to any allegations before any decision is made.

3.

The initiation and completion of the fresh noconfidence motion process must be concluded within 45 days from the date of this order to ensure timely resolution.

4.

The Panchayat Secretary shall ensure that the entire process of the no-confidence motion adheres to the relevant Panchayat Regulations and Rules.

2.

The Executive Officer has transgressed his jurisdiction in making the aforesaid recommendation as the order of 13th December, 2024 does not permit him to make any such recommendation. The matter ought to have ended with the observation "that the entire process followed by the Gram Panchayat regarding the removal of the Pradhan consequent of the no confidence motion is hereby set aside". 3.

Ms. Anjili Nag, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Navin Kumar Lakra and others in WPA/83/2025 intervened and has submitted that at the instance of Mr. Lakra and another writ petitioner, a no confidence motion was moved for the second time and admittedly when the matter was taken up for consideration by a Coordinate Bench on 26th February, 2025, the writ petitioner has not challenged the order dated 13th January, 2025.

4.

The Coordinate Bench, after taking into consideration of such facts, has passed a direction upon the respondent no.5 to complete the process of the no confidence motion issued pursuant to the notice dated 13th January, 2025 within a period four weeks by the Gram Panchayat from the date of communication of this order.

5.

In the writ petition, being WPA/83/2025, the subject matter of challenge was a notice dated 17th January, 2025 issued subsequent to the order dated 13th January, 2025 by one member of the Gram Panchayat and the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition by giving timelines within which the entire process to be completed, pursuant to

the said notice. However, in disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge made the following observations. "17. Pursuant to the directions of the Coordinate Bench, as referred to above, the said order was passed by the respondent no.4 dated January 13, 2025. None of the parties have challenged the said order 18.

An executive order and direction passed and made in pursuance of a direction of the Coordinate Bench, unless challenged in accordance with law and is quashed in accordance with law, the same remains in its full force and effect.

19.

The letter shown to this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the Pradhan dated January 16, 2025, as referred to above, is merely a protest of the Pradhan recorded by way of a letter which was submitted to the respondent no.4 alleging certain illegalities, alleged to be there in the said order dated January 13, 2025 passed by the respondent no.4. Such letter cannot be construed to be a challenge to the said executive order dated January 13, 2025. So long the said executive order dated January 13, 2025 remains in its full force and effect, this Court is of the view that the directions made therein are necessarily required to be carried out."

6.

The issue before the learned Coordinate Bench was not the validity of the order dated 13th January, 2025. The steps taken subsequent to the said order was the subject matter of challenge before the Coordinate Bench.

7.

The learned Single Judge was of the view that the protest letter issued by the Pradhan alleging certain illegalities and uncalled for observations by the Executive Officer is not sufficient to ignore the said order as the said order is not formally quashed. There is no decision on the validity of the said letter on merits and as such the said decision cannot be construed to be a res judicata insofar as the present writ petitioner is concerned. This Court has to independently assess

as to whether the said decision of the Executive Officer was in accordance with the order passed in WPA/680/2024. 8.

In the writ petition, being WPA/680/2024, filed by the present writ petitioner, the initiation of the no confidence motion was itself under challenge and the Executive Officer was directed to take into consideration the grievances raised in the writ petition to find out whether there is a proper initiation of the no confidence motion. The Executive Officer appears to have transgressed his jurisdiction in making the aforesaid observation. The said observations are extraneous to the issue and partisan in nature.

9.

The aforesaid portion of the order of the Executive Officer is set aside as it is without jurisdiction and appears to be have been made in malafide exercise of power.

10.

Under such circumstances any steps taken on the basis of the recommendation of the Executive Officer as mentioned hereinabove shall stand quashed.

11.

It is made clear that any fresh proceeding, if initiated in accordance with Andaman and Nicobar (Panchayat Regulation), 1994 and rules and regulations shall be strictly considered in terms of the Regulation 1994 and Rules made thereunder. 12.

Ms. G. Mini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has submitted that the said initiation is in violation of Rules 9(1) and 21(6) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 and 19(3) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayat Administration) Rules, 1997.

13.

It is needless to mention that the authority concerned shall consider the said objections while considering the no confidence motion initiated subsequent to the order dated 13th January, 2025 by Shri Nawin Kumar Lakra and others and if it is found to have been initiated on the recommendation of the Executive Officer it shall be immediately dropped. In other words the recommendation should not form the basis of a fresh no confidence motion.

14.

I have heard Ms. Anjili Nag, representing Shri Navin Kumar Lakra and others in WPA/83/2025 although they are not made parties to this writ petition. I have allowed Ms. Anjili Nag, learned senior advocate to make submission on his behalf. 15.

Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied by the respondents and writ petitioners in WPA/83/2025. 16.

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( Soumen Sen, J. )