Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ujjala Biswas & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 August, 2021
19.08.2021
Sl. No.19
Sl.5
W.P.A. No. 12707 of 2021
Ujjala Biswas & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. S. Basu..Sr.Advocate
Mr. Debanik Banerjee
Mr. Rajesh Kshetry
Mr. Steven Sourodip Biswas
...for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ansar Mandal
Ms. Sipra Mazumder ...for the State.
Despite service, none appears on behalf of the
Pradhan. Let the Affidavit of service be taken on record.
It appears from the affidavit of service that all the
respondents have been served by e-mail. The screen
shot of the e-mail showing that the same has been sent
to the respondents is annexed to the writ petition.
The writ petitioners are the requisitionists who had
brought a requisition on July 16, 2021, requesting the
prescribed authority to convene a meeting for removal of
the Pradhan of Belgoria-II Gram Panchayat, District-
Nadia on the ground of loss of confidence.
The prescribed authority issued a notice on July
16, 2021 fixing July 19, 2021 for recording satisfaction
with regard to the identity of the requisitionists.
Thereafter, no steps have been taken by the prescribed
authority to convene the meeting as per section 12(3) of
the said Act.
Mr. Mandal, learned Senior Government Advocate
appearing for the State-respondents, submits that the
requisition dated July 16, 2021 has lost its force and the
same cannot be revived by the order of the Court as the
statutory period prescribed under Section 12(10) of the
West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 has expired.
Having heard the rival contentions of the parties,
as the period prescribed under Section 12(10) of the
statute, has expired, the requisition dated July 16, 2021
has become infructuous and is liable to be set aside.
The requisition notice and any subsequent notice
with regard to the removal of the Pradhan is set aside
and cancelled. The prescribed authority did not disclose
any reasons for not issuing the notices as per law.
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. In my opinion, the
provision for removing an elected representative such as
the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan 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.
In the decision of Ujjwal Kumar Singha v. State of
W.B. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 4636, it was held
that:
"5. The entire impugned judgment and order is
supported with cogent reasons and there is no
palpable infirmity noticed therein which would
warrant any interference in an Intra-Court
Mandamus Appeal. It appears that the
appellant/writ petitioner resorted to taking shelter
under the high prerogative jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India only for the purpose of thwarting the well-
established democratic principles which govern
the running of public institutions such as a Gram
Panchayat, being at the lowest tier of self-
governance at the village level in the three-tier
Panchayati Raj System. In this context, one may
take notice of the observations made by this Court
in Farida Bibi v. The State of West Bengal reported
in 2016 (5) CHN (Cal) 258, while following the
observations made by the Supreme Court in Usha
Bharti v. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 7 SCC
663 : AIR 2014 SC 1686, wherein it was observed
to the effect that it is the fundamental right of
democracy that those who have been elected can
also be removed by expressing, 'No Confidence
Motion' for the elected person. 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. This is the essence of democratic
republicanism which was taken note of by the
Supreme Court in Usha Bharti (supra).
6. The appeal has no merit and is liable to be
dismissed along with the application for stay with
exemplary costs assessed at 500 G.Ms. which
shall be deposited with the State Legal Services
Authority for being earmarked for utilisation by
the Mediation and Conciliation Committee of the
High Court."
This writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the
requisitionists to bring a fresh requisition in terms of
Section 12(2) of the said Act. If such requisition is
brought, the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself
about compliance of Section 12(2) of the said Act and
then act and proceed in terms of Sections 12(3) and
12(4) onwards to reach the requisitions to its logical
conclusion within the period mentioned in the statute.
In addition to the modes of service of the requisition
upon the Pradhan as prescribed under the statute, a
copy shall be pasted at the office of the Pradhan and
also in the residence of the Pradhan, if either the
Pradhan or his staff do not accept the requisition. The
bar under Section 12(11) shall not be applicable. The
prescribed authority cannot neglect to discharge his
duiteis under the statute. This deliberate neglect and
disregard to law is viewed with seriousness.
This Court is not making any observation on the
right of the Pradhan to continue in his office as the said
issue will be decided in the meeting itself. If necessary,
the prescribed authority may seek police protection,
which shall be rendered without any delay or laches on
the part of the police authorities.
This writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
All parties are to act on the basis of the server copy
of this order.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
