Srinagar: The J&K High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner Budgam to conclude within two weeks the ‘no confidence motion’ moved in February by the District Development Councillors (DDCs) against their chairperson.
Disposing of a writ petition by the councillors, the bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri directed the “respondent No 2, Deputy Commissioner Budgam, to conclude the ‘No Confidence Motion’ dated 29.02.2024, moved by the petitioners against Chairperson, District Development Council, Budgam.”
The motion has to be concluded “having due regard to the legal position governing the field, within a period of two weeks from the date copy of this order along with copy of writ petition and documents, is furnished to him,” reads the order.
The petitioners had been elected as DDC members of their respective constituencies of Khag, Nagam, Khansahib, Narbal, Pakharpura, Soibugh, Sukhnag, Rathsun, BK Pora, Sursyar, Parnewa, Chadoora and Budgam, through general elections conducted by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir in the year 2021. One Nazir Ahmad Khan was appointed as Chairperson, District Development Council, Budgam.
According to Bhat Fayaz Ahmad, the counsel of the plaintiff, the councillors moved a ‘no confidence motion’ against Khan, the Chairperson, on February 29 2024 before the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam.
“In terms of Section 45-A of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 (Act of 1989, for short), Chairperson or Vice Chairperson of District Development Council, is deemed to have vacated his office forthwith, if a resolution expressing want of confidence in his favour, is passed by a majority of not less than 2/3rd of the directly elected members of the District Development Council at a meeting specifically convened for the purpose,” argued the lawyer.
He said the motion was moved “in the prescribed manner on the grounds of gross misconduct, neglect of duty, any disqualification prescribed under sub-section -10 of Section 45-A of Act of 1989, or failure to attend three consecutive meetings of the District Development Council”.
It was the further contention of the petitioners’ lawyer that in terms of SO No. 117 of 2024, the Deputy Commissioner is obliged to convene a meeting of the elected members of the council for consideration of no confidence motion to be held at the office of council at a time appointed by him.
The time, he said, shall not be later than 15 working days from the date on which the notice under sub-Rule (1) is delivered to him and a meeting convened under sub-Rule (2) has to be presided over by Chairperson if ‘motion’ is against Vice Chairperson and by Vice Chairperson if ‘motion’ is against Chairperson.
The contention of petitioners is that the motion in question was to be concluded by respondent, Deputy Commissioner Budgam, within 15 working days. But “he has failed to discharge the duty vested in him under law and he deliberately slept over the matter without any lawful justification,” their petition said.
