GANGTOK, 14 Sept: The High Court of Sikkim has upheld the removal of two panchayat members – a president and secretary - of Gyalshing Omchung Gram Panchayat Unit who had been removed from their offices by the RMD Department on 22 March, 2011. The two removed panchayat members are MB Thatal [panchayat president] of Legship and Tara Kumar Sigdel [panchayat secretary] of Lower Gyalshing.
The notification for their removal and subsequent notification for re-election to the posts made vacant came about after the DC West issued the two a show cause notice for alleged abuse to power and for causing obstruction of performance of legal duties by a government servant.
The incident dates to October 2008 when the DC West issued a notice directing removal of a building owned by one JB Sikdel under Sikkim Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants and Rent Recovery) Act, 1980. This building had collapsed and was obstructing a road, apart from posing a threat to the surrounding area.
Following this notice, JB Sikdel had approached the two panchayat members complaining against it. The two panchayat members then wrote a letter to the DC West in November 2008 to consider the grievance. However, this letter had been styled as a ‘Notice’ to the DC West.
This was considered an abuse of powers vested in them as panchayats.
Following this, the two were also found to have caused obstruction to a government servant performing his duties. The said public servant was DPO/ DRM, West district, who had been deputed to dismantle and remove the aforesaid building. The two had been charged with abusing the government officer on the site. The building itself had been found by the DC to be causing danger and inconvenience to the public because it had toppled on to the road.
The two panchayat members were also served a show cause notice by the Director, Panchayats, RMDD, who is the prescribed authority to explain the complaint of the DC West. On being dissatisfied with their explanations, the Secretary, RMDD then issued the notification directing their removal and for re-election to the posts made vacant by their removal.
The High Court observed in its judgment that the power to remove a Sabhapati [president] and Sachiva [secretary] or any other office-bearer of a gram panchayat is vested in the state government and can be used if they abuse the powers vested in them under the Sikkim Panchayat Act, 1993. The Act itself does not define as to what constitutes an abuse of power and this has been left open for the state government to decide.
The High Court has also observed that it was not sitting as a Court of Appeal against the decision of statutory authorities but was only confined to examining whether such statutory authorities had acted without jurisdiction or in violation of the laid down procedures or the law. The court, in its judgment, has found that the decision making process to be as prescribed under the law and therefore, found it unnecessary to interfere.
The notification for their removal and subsequent notification for re-election to the posts made vacant came about after the DC West issued the two a show cause notice for alleged abuse to power and for causing obstruction of performance of legal duties by a government servant.
The incident dates to October 2008 when the DC West issued a notice directing removal of a building owned by one JB Sikdel under Sikkim Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants and Rent Recovery) Act, 1980. This building had collapsed and was obstructing a road, apart from posing a threat to the surrounding area.
Following this notice, JB Sikdel had approached the two panchayat members complaining against it. The two panchayat members then wrote a letter to the DC West in November 2008 to consider the grievance. However, this letter had been styled as a ‘Notice’ to the DC West.
This was considered an abuse of powers vested in them as panchayats.
Following this, the two were also found to have caused obstruction to a government servant performing his duties. The said public servant was DPO/ DRM, West district, who had been deputed to dismantle and remove the aforesaid building. The two had been charged with abusing the government officer on the site. The building itself had been found by the DC to be causing danger and inconvenience to the public because it had toppled on to the road.
The two panchayat members were also served a show cause notice by the Director, Panchayats, RMDD, who is the prescribed authority to explain the complaint of the DC West. On being dissatisfied with their explanations, the Secretary, RMDD then issued the notification directing their removal and for re-election to the posts made vacant by their removal.
The High Court observed in its judgment that the power to remove a Sabhapati [president] and Sachiva [secretary] or any other office-bearer of a gram panchayat is vested in the state government and can be used if they abuse the powers vested in them under the Sikkim Panchayat Act, 1993. The Act itself does not define as to what constitutes an abuse of power and this has been left open for the state government to decide.
The High Court has also observed that it was not sitting as a Court of Appeal against the decision of statutory authorities but was only confined to examining whether such statutory authorities had acted without jurisdiction or in violation of the laid down procedures or the law. The court, in its judgment, has found that the decision making process to be as prescribed under the law and therefore, found it unnecessary to interfere.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Readers are invited to comment on, criticise, run down, even appreciate if they like something in this blog. Comments carrying abusive/ indecorous language and personal attacks, except when against the people working on this blog, will be deleted. It will be exciting for all to enjoy some earnest debates on this blog...