Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 8: High Court today issued direction for conducting floor test for the post of Chairman of Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC), Kargil.
The direction has been passed in a petition filed by Mohd Haneefa Jan, Chairman LAHDC Kargil and others seeking directions against operation of impugned SRO 228 dated 5th of July, 2016 and order dated 8th of July, 2016 whereby the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner Kargil directed for holding elections to the post of Chairman/Chief Executive Councillor of LAHDC, Kargil and seized the powers of the Chairman of the Council.
After hearing Advocate Pranav Kohli for the petitioners whereas Advocate General Jehangir Iqbal Ganai for the State, Justice Tashi Rabstan disposed of the petition by providing that the respondents shall proceed in the matter by holding floor test, which is the most fair method to be conducted in these circumstances for election of a candidate in joint majority in the House or Council, as the case may be in accordance with law.
The succinct factual background tailored in writ petition is that election for constitution of Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil was conducted in the year 2013 and the total number of seats in the Council to be filled amongst the persons chosen by direct election shall be 26. The Government may nominate 4 persons from amongst the principle religious minorities and women in the district to be members of the Council.
The sitting members of the House of the people representing the Assembly or the Parliamentary Constituency, as the case may be, in which the district is situated shall be ex officio members of the Council constituted for the district. Thus, in total the Council comprises of 30 members.
Pursuant to the elections conducted in the year 2013, respondent vide Notification dated 02.09.2013 notified and published the names of the elected members of the LAHDC, who thereafter while exercising the powers conferred under Sub Section 2 of the Section 4 of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Act, 1997 nominated 4 persons as Members of LAHDC Kargil vide Notification dated 04.09.2013.
The Chairman of the Council was to be elected amongst the elected members of the Council under Section 25(1) of the LAHDC Act, which is defined as Chief Executive Councilor in terms of Section 29(1) (a) of the Act of 1997.
“It is contended that after election of members of the Council, the election for the post of Chairman/Chief Executive Councilor was also conducted, in which Asgar Ali Karbalai was elected as Chief Executive Councilor/Chairman of LAHDC, Kargil. Thereafter, pursuant to the Assembly elections, Asgar Ali Karbalai, was elected as MLA from Kargil constituency and consequently, he resigned from his designation as Chairman/CEC LAHDC Kargil”, High Court observed.
In the month of April 2015, members of the Council led by National Conference along with 3 Independent candidates and 4 nominated candidates represented for conducting election to the post of Chairman/CEC for the reasons that vacancy had accrued to the position on account of resignation of Asgar Ali Karbalai.
Accordingly, elections were conducted and one of members of the majority group, namely Mohd Haneefa was elected as a Chairman/CEC for LAHDC Kargil on 13.04.2015. “It is averred that in the month of June 2016 one independent candidate, namely, Kacho Ali Ahmed Khan, who had earlier supported the majority members of the Council, withdrew his support. On such withdrawal, a resolution was made by total 15 Councilors, of which 10 were representing Indian National Congress and 5 were independent Councilors, for dissolution of present Council with the plea that the majority members representing the Council have been reduced to minority and on this representation, respondent issued Circular dated 30th June, 2016 by referring the issue to the Government to enable the members of the Council led by National Conference to prove the majority on the Floor of the Council”, High Court further observed.
Petitioners represented to respondent and reiterated not to disrupt functioning of LAHDC Kargil merely on the resolution of minority group and requested that Chairman has neither been removed by the resolution carried by majority nor has any vacancy in the office of Chairman occurred.
“It is contended that respondent has misunderstood the provisions of Rule 94 and 95 of LAHDC Rules, 1995”, High Court said, adding “Rule 94 pertains to the procedure for elections of Chairman whereas Rule 95 pertains to the election to the post of Chairman in case of vacancy occurred on account of death, resignation or removal in terms of Section 27(2) or otherwise”.
“It is contended that nowhere it contemplates a situation for re-election to the post of Chairman, until the existing Council fails to prove its majority on the Floor of the Council”, Justice Rabstan said.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel