Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Reyaz Ahmad Rather And Ors vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 3 March, 2025
Serial No. 109
Regular Cause List
IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 202/2025 CM No. 406/2025 c/w
CCP(S) No. 150/2024.
Reyaz Ahmad Rather and Ors. ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with
M/s Zamir Abdullah and Zahir Abdullah, Advocates.
Vs
UT of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Allaudin Ganai, learned AAG for R-1 & 2.
Mr. Badrul Duja, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
03.03.2025.
WPC (C) No. 202/2025.
1. Mr. Badrul Duja, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No.
3.
2. Reply on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 2 has not been filed so
far. All the respondents are directed to ensure the filing of the reply
in the matter positively by the next date of hearing.
CM No. 406/2025.
1. Mr. Badrul Duja, Advocate enters his appearance for respondent
No. 3 in this interim application too. Respondents 1 and 2 have not
filed their objections to the instant application. All the non-
applicants/respondents are directed to ensure the filing of their
objections, if any, in this application by the next date of hearing.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of their
prayer for grant of interim relief.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the elections
for District Development Councils (DDC‟s) were conducted in the
UT of Jammu & Kashmir, during the end of the year-2020 and the
petitioners came to be elected as DDC members along with the
respondent No. 3 from their respective areas for District
Development Council, Budgam. That, petitioners assumed the
charge of their offices and have been discharging their duties as per
the mandate of Jammu and Kashmir Panchayat Raj Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and the Rules of 1996
framed thereunder. That, all the 14 members of District
Development Council, Budgam, elected respondent No. 3 as
Chairman of the Council as per the Act and the rules governing the
filed more especially the Rule 108-ZN (21). That, unfortunately, just
after the respondent No. 3 took over as Chairperson of the District
Development Council, Budgam, his conduct and attitude was
viewed by all the members as being detrimental to his office for the
reasons of gross misconduct and neglect of duty thus unbecoming of
a Chairperson, which prompted all the 13 members of the Council
i.e., the petitioners, to unanimously move a „No Confidence Motion‟
against him, to the respondent No. 2 i.e., Deputy Commissioner,
Budgam, as per Section 45A(14) of the Act read with the relevant
rules and more especially the Notification SO 117 dated 19th
February, 2024 adding, rules 108-ZQ, 108-ZR, 108-ZS to the rules
of 1996. That the respondent No. 2, however, dared to observe
silence and did not proceed on the „No Confidence Motion‟
towards the logical conclusion of the same as per the law. They
further contended that as per the provisions of Rule 108-ZQ(2),
respondent No. 2 was under an obligation to convene a meeting for
consideration of the motion within 15 working days of having
received the notice of the same. That as per the Sub-rule 12 of the
Rule 108-ZQ, the respondent No. 3 would have ceased to hold the
office upon carrying the „No Confidence Motion‟. That the inaction
on the part of the respondent No. 2 compelled the petitioners
constituting 13 out of 14 members of the District Development
Council, Budgam, to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court through an earlier writ petition which came to be registered as
WP(C) 607/2024, with the prayer therein that respondent No. 2 be
directed to conclude the „No Confidence Motion‟ without any
further delay and to take steps to appoint a new Chairperson. It is
further contended that this Court while disposing of the said earlier
petition vide order dated 27.03.2024, directed the respondent No. 2,
Deputy Commissioner, Budgam to conclude the „No Confidence
Motion‟ dated 29.02.2024 moved by the petitioners against
respondent No. 3 herein, having due regard to the legal position
governing the field within a period of 2 weeks of having received
the order of this Court. That, however, the respondent No. 2 again
chose to persist in his intention to defy the Court order by not
proceeding on the „No Confidence Motion‟ against the respondent
No. 3. That petitioners were again prompted to file a contempt
petition before this Court on account of the intentional and willful
breach of the Court order dated 27.03.2024 by the respondent No. 2
which came to be registered as CCP(S) 150/2024. That the
directions were issued against the respondent No. 2 even in the
contempt petition for filing the status/compliance report, but still the
respondent No. 2 persists in his intention.
4. It was further contended that the respondent No. 2 assigned the
reason for non-compliance of the order of this Court dated
27.03.2024 as the operation of the Model Code of Conduct, when he
has failed to do the needful even immediately after the conclusion of
the Parliamentary Elections/before the announcement of the
Assembly Elections or even after that, thereby showing his
unwillingness. Further contended that the circumstances and the
reasons that compelled the petitioners to file the „No Confidence
Motion‟ dated 29.02.2024 continue to aggravate and worsen as the
respondent No. 3 has continuously failed to hold the Council
meetings and has not been allowing the petitioner members to do
any work.
5. Further contended that the conduct of the respondent No. 2 has
forced the petitioners to move a second „No Confidence Motion‟
dated 12.12.2024 to him seeking removal of the respondent No. 3.
The respondent No. 2 has again failed to act on the second „No
Confidence Motion‟ as per the time frame under Rule 108-ZQ
introduced through the SO-117 dated. 19.02.2024. As per the
learned counsel for the petitioners, there is now no excuse for the
respondent No. 2 to proceed immediately on the second „No
Confidence Motion‟ by convening a meeting for consideration of the
same.
6. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that it is crystal clear from the provisions of the Rule 108-ZQ added
through SO 117 of 19.02.2024, that „no confidence motion‟ has to
be moved to the Deputy Commissioner, who has to convene a
meeting at the office of the council for consideration of the same
and as such no clarification was needed for identity of the authorized
officer.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted
that as per the authoritative law on the subject, principles of natural
justice are deemed to be imported in the provisions of the Act and
the Rules. He contended that the „No Confidence Motions‟ in
question are actuated by malafides. The learned counsel further
contended that the earlier „No Confidence Motion‟ was not acted
upon by the respondent No. 2, due to the operation of the Model
Code of Conduct at that period of time. Further contended that the
respondent No. 2 communicated to the Secretary to the Govt,
Department of Rural Development to seek clarification regarding
the identity of the “Authorised Officer” for the purpose of the SO
117 notified on 19th February, 2024.The learned counsel sought
opportunity for filing objections to the interim application.
8. List on 26th March, 2025.
9. In the meantime, subject to any vacation or modification upon the
consideration of objections/arguments and till further orders, the
respondent No. 2 is directed to immediately address, the second
„No-Confidence Motion‟ reported to have been moved by the
petitioners against the respondent No. 3, strictly as per the
provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and submit a
compliance report to the Court positively by the next date of
hearing.
CCP(S) No. 150/2024.
1. Fresh compliance report as per order dated 17.12.2024, if not
already filed, shall be filed positively by the next date of hearing.
2. List as above.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
03.03.2025
(Shahid)
[ad_1]
Source link