SHRI CHAKRADHAR DAS & ANOTHER Vs. SHRI KARUNA KANTA PATHAK & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Assam, a Gaonburah acts as the mouth piece of the locality where he lives. So, leadership is one of the pre-condition or qualification of a Gaonburah; he is also to assist the Mouzadar in collecting land revenue and help the Mandal while making annual correction of village maps, etc. He is also to discharge his duties under Sec. 45 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as village headman, and to report crime to the Police. Further, he is obliged to look after the health and sanitation of villagers. Glimpses of his duties and obligations can be gathered from the Executive Instruction No. 164 of the Assam Land Revenue Manual. In view of the nature of the duties of Gaonburahs the choice to find out a suitable person has been exclusively conferred on the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Officer. These facts are not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The best persons to know the intrinsic qualities of leadership and the requisite abilities of a Gaonburah to perform the duties connected with the collection of land revenue, etc. as well as his capacity to assist the Police are the Sub-Deputy Collector, Officer-in-charge of the Police Station and Mazumdar. Therefore, in the instant case, the Sub-Divisional Officer called for exhaustive reports from these officers and on scrutiny of the reports he concluded that the petitioner was the most suitable person to be appointed as Gaonburah in respect of No. 10 Hathinapur village.

(2.) It will be seen from the reports received from the Sub-Deputy Collector, Officer-in-charge of the local Police Station, Mouzadar of Hastinapur Mouza that Respondent No. 1, Sri Karuna Kanta was found by them to be most suitable person for appointment as Gaonburah. Executive Instruction No. 162 confers 'a discretionary power' in the authority to appoint Gaonburah as it says that Gaonburahs shall be appointed by the officer "whom he considers most suitable for the post." Therefore, on perusal of the reports of the officers, the Sub-divisional Officer held Respondent No. 1 to be most suitable person as Gaonburah. But the petitioners have questioned the validity of the order of appointment as violation of Executive Instruction No. 162

(3.) We have perused the reports but do not find that the discretion was wrongly exercised nor is there any trace of violation of the Instructions. Having perused the reports of the responsible officers we find that the petitioners are sons of the former Gaonburah. This aspect of the matter finds place in the reports but there are other discouraging factors against them in the reports, which we propose not to set forth herein.