PADMINI SINGHA versus THE STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 235 · Decided: 27-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
235
PADMINI SINGHA
v.
THE STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4677 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Assam Panchayat Act, 1994– s.15(1)– Mandatory provision–
Waiver of – No Confidence Motion passed against respondent
no. 6, President of the concerned Panchayat in a meeting presided
over by the Block Development Officer (BDO) – Respondent no. 6
lost her Presidentship and the appellant, Vice President, was directed
to function as incharge President of the concerned Panchayat for
the time being– Writ petition filed by respondent no.6 challenging
the legal acceptability and validity of the resolution expressing want
of confidence against her, allowed– Held: On a plain reading of
the s.15(1), it is 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 –  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 – 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 – In
the present case, respondent no. 6 who was a beneficiary attended
the meeting wherein voting had taken place and no public interest
was affected – Further, the BDO presided over the meeting and
everyone including respondent no.6 knew that the meeting was called
for passing a resolution either in favour of or against the No
Confidence Motion – After losing in the voting process, the
procedure of calling the meeting was assailed – Having participated,
respondent no. 6 waived the condition precedent – Resolution
passed against respondent no. 6 valid – Waiver.
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 235
   235
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  On a plain reading of the Section 15(1), Assam
Panchayat Act, 1994 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. [Para 9] [240-G]
1.2 The resolution passed in the meeting on 31.03.2014
records that the respondent no. 6 was present in the meeting
and signed. 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. In the obtaining
fact situation, no public interest was affected. The Block
Development Officer (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 resolution was passed against her. After losing in the
voting process, the assail was made to the procedure of calling
the meeting. 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. The orders passed by the Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench are set aside. The resolution
passed against the respondent no. 6 is treated as valid.
[Paras 11, 13 and 14] [241-F-G; 242-D-H; 243-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
237
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  : Civil Appeal No. 4677
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated  24.11.2017 of the Gauhati
High Court in Writ Appeal No. 310 of 2016.
Pijush Ka

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.