Sri Kartick Chalak vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4201 Cal

S/L 4
11.08.2021
Court. No. 19
sn
                             W.P.A. 12566 of 2021

                                Sri Kartick Chalak
                                        VS
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                            (Through Video Conference)


                Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya
                Mr. Raju Bhattacharyya
                Ms. Salma Sultana Shah
                Ms. Ankita Dey
                                                    ... for the Petitioner.

                Mr. Partha Sarathi Deb Barman,
                Mr. Monoranjan Mehata
                                ... for Respondent Nos.7-18

Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata Mr. Rudranil De ... for the State.

The writ petition has been filed by the Sabhapati of

Baghmundi Gram Panchayat. The contention of the

petitioner is that the requisition was brought on July 28,

2021 by the respondent nos.6 to 15 expressing their intention

to remove the Sabhapati as the requisitionists had lost

confidence in the Sabhapati. An allegation was made in the

motion that the Sabhapati lacked proper leadership qualities

was corrupt and was incapable of being a political leader.

According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the said requisition

contains a stigma.

Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in

the matter of Ujjal Mondal vs. State of West Bengal reported

in 2013 (1) CHN (CAL) and Sourendra Nath Das vs. The

State of West Bengal & Ors. passed in WPA 11903 of 2021.

Mr. Deb Barman, learned advocate, who appears on

behalf of the requisitionists submits that the intention to

remove would suffice the requirement of law and the

allegations against the Sabhapati could easily be ignored.

Thus, it is submitted on behalf of the requisitionists that the

provisions of Section 101(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat

Act, 1973 allows such kind of a requisition when the only

requirement was an intention to remove the Sabhapati on

the ground of 'loss of confidence'. He submits that the other

portions of the requisition are redundant and neither the

prescribed authority nor the Court can take cognizance of

such statements. The said statements do not have any impact

on the requisition.

Mr. Mahata, learned advocate for the state respondents

submits that the notice was not stigmatic as such. He

distinguished the decision of Ujjal Mondal (supra) on the

ground that in Ujjal Mondal (supra), the allegations were

more serious. According to him, in this case, the allegation

was inaction and incompetence which were not stigmatic. Mr.

Mahata refers to a decision of a Division Bench of this court in

the matter of Ujjwal Kumar Singha Vs. State of West Bengal,

reported in (2017) 2 CHN 258 (DB). In the said decision, the

court observed that in an institution which runs on

democratic principles, a person can continue to be its head so

long he/she enjoys the confidence of the persons who

comprised such a body. According to Mr. Mahata, one of the

challenges before the Division Bench was that the requisition

notice carried a stigma, but the Division Bench did not set

aside the requisition.

I have heard the learned Advocate for the respective

parties.

In the matter of Ujjal Mondal (supra) the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court held that the requisition

notice/no confidence motion was entertainable only when

there was no foundation for bringing the motion. The

relevant portion is quoted below:

"24. Having regard to section 101 of the said Act, we are of the view that a 'no confidence motion' is entertainable for removal of Prodhan where there should not be any ground or foundation of bringing 'no confidence motion' and if 'no confidence motion' is carried on that ground, it will invite civil consequence or evil consequence to the Office Bearers relating to his political career naturally and as such, natural justice principle will have play in the matter, thereby a breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

Having perused the judgment of the Division Bench in

Ujjwal Kumar Singha (supra), I do not find that the Division

Bench decided the point as to whether the requisition which

carries some allegation against the Sabhapati could be

entertained. It appears that there was a challenge to the no

confidence motion on the ground that the same was carrying

allegations, but the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the

learned Single Judge had dealt with the issues and had

dismissed the writ petition with reasons. However, there is no

observations as to whether the requisition, even if, it

contained any allegation or stigma could be entertained

contrary to what was decided in Ujjal Mondal (supra).

This court in the matter Sourendra Nath Das v. The

State of West Bengal & ors. in WPA 11903 of 2021 held as

follows:

"Having considered the submissions made by the petitioner and the learned advocates for the prescribed authority, this court is of the opinion that a reading of the requisition notice (which is in bengali), as a whole, would indicate that in the opinion of the members, the Sabhapati has proved to be incompetent as he did not perform his duties and developmental works, causing deprivation to the people of the locality from the benefits all governmental projects, and thus the members had lost confidence in their leader and wanted his removal.

The effect of such a requisition is that the Sabhapati being incompetent to perform his duties had caused suffering to the people and would be consequently removed as the members lost confidence on account of such non-performance. The Sabhapati has a career. If the requisition is allowed to stand, it would be a reflection of his inability and incompetence in performing his duties as a leader of the gram panchayat. This is the foundation of the requisition. The 'no confidence' is based on the allegation of incompetence and inability of the Sabhapati and the suffering caused to the people in the locality due to such incompetence. This is not a simple requisition for removal of the Sabhapati. The removal if carried through in the meeting will carry a stigma that the Sabhapati was removed as he failed to perform his duties and developmental works.

In my opinion, the decision of Ujjal Mondal (supra) applies. Even if the allegations are not as serious as misappropriation or misconduct, incapacity or incompetence of a political leader to perform works in the locality which has cause disillusionment, unhappiness and suffering to the people in the locality are allegations which can be viewed with seriousness. The future prospects of the Sabhapati might be jeopardized. He will also not get a

chance to explain his conduct. Thus, the requisition notice and subsequent notice are set aside for the reasons stated hereinabove."

Another interim decision of a Division Bench has been

placed by the respondents, in the matter of Prasanta Mitra Vs.

The State of West Bengal passed in MAT 1086 of 2019.

Having perused the interim order, this court is of the opinion

that the consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench was

not with regard to any stigma or allegation in the requisition

notice.

Having considered the rival submissions of the

learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court is of

the opinion that the issue before the Hon'ble Division Bench

with regard to the removal of the Sabhapati was similar to

the one raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. The

foundation of the no confidence and the intention to remove

the Sabhapati was lack of proper leadership, corruption and

incompetence. The Sabhapati can be removed by the

requisitionists if they have lost confidence in him by bringing

a requisition with the intention to remove. As soon as there is

an allegation of lack of proper leadership, corruption and

incompetence the same becomes stigmatic as the Sabhapati

is a politically appointed representative of the people and any

allegation of such nature may have a negative effect on his

future prospects and his credibility as a member of the

Panchayat may be affected.

Thus, having considered the requisition notice as a

whole, I of the view that it indicates that the lack of

confidence on the Sabhapati was due to lack of proper

leadership, corruption and incompetence. Such allegations

can also enrage and turn the people in the locality against the

Sabhapati.

Thus, in my view, with due respect to the submissions

made by the learned advocates of the requisitionists, the

requisition cannot be sustained in law only on the ground

that there are allegations against the Sabhapati, which form

the foundation of the no-confidence.

Under such circumstances, the requisition as also the

notice dated August 2, 2021 and all actions are set aside and

quashed. This matter is entertained solely for the reasons

indicated hereinabove.

However, the court is conscious of the rights of the

requisitionists.

In my opinion, the provision for removing an elected

representative such as the Sabhapati is of fundamental

importance to ensure the democratic functioning of the

institution as well as to ensure the transparency and

accountability in the functions performed by the elected

representatives. These institutions must run on democratic

principles. In democracy, all persons heading public bodies

can continue provided they enjoy the confidence of the

persons who comprise such bodies. This is the essence of

democratic republicanism. If the Sabhapati has lost support

of the majority of the members, he cannot remain in office

for a single day.

I do not find that the petitioner has any statutory or

legal right to stall any meeting except in accordance with

law. Such meetings have not been barred by the

Government. The Government offices have resumed

functioning.

The requisitionists are granted liberty to bring a fresh

requisition as per Section 101(2) of the West Bengal

Panchayat Act, 1973. If such requisition is brought, the

prescribed authority shall act and proceed in terms of the

provisions of Sections 101(3) and 101(4) onwards of the said

Act and reach the requisition to its logical conclusion within

the time limit prescribed by the statute. The bar under

Section 101(11) of the said Act shall not be applicable.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

However, there will be no order as to costs.

Parties are directed to act on the communication of

the learned advocates.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)