Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
S vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 23 August, 2021
11
Court
No. 19 23.8.2021 WPA 12970 of 2021
G.S.Da [
Shanicharan Singmura
s
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & ors.
(Via Video Conference)
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya
Mr. S. P. lahiri
... for the petitioner
Mr. Raja Saha
Ms. Rupsa Chakraborty
... for the State of W.B.
Mr. Saibal Acharya
Mr. S. B. Mukherjee
... for the respondent nos. 6,8,9,10
Mr. J. C. Halder
.. for the respondent nos. 11 and 12
This writ petition has been filed by the
Pradhan of Begunkodar Gram Panchayat. The
petitioner has challenged the requisition dated
August 10, 2021 as also the notice issued by the
Prescribed Authority dated August 10, 2021
under Form-1E of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5B of the
West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules,
1975.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the
first requisition was brought on May 7, 2021
which was accepted by the Prescribed Authority
and the meeting for removal of the Pradhan was
fixed on May 21, 2021. On May 18, 2021, the
Prescribed Authority cancelled the meeting on the
ground of restriction imposed by the State of
West Bengal in view of the rising pandemic
situation.
Mr. Bhattacharya submits that on August
3, 2021 another requisition was brought and
within seven days thereof a fresh requisition was
brought on August 10, 2021, which was acted
upon by the Prescribed Authority and August 24,
2021, 12.00 noon, was fixed for holding a
meeting for removal of the Pradhan.
According to Mr. Bhattacharya, two
consecutive notices cannot be brought within a
span of seven days, unless the Prescribed
Authority cancel or postpone the earlier
requisition.
In this case, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that
there is nothing on record which would reveal the
fate of the requisition dated August 3, 2021. The
requisition dated August 3, 2021 was sent to the
Pradhan. Thus, according to Mr. Bhattacharya,
unless the Prescribed Authority had cancelled the
requisition or had decided not to continue with
the same, a fresh requisition on August 10, 2021
could not have been brought and the Prescribed
Authority could not have acted upon such
requisition without having first dealt with the
earlier requisition dated August 3, 2021.
Mr. Saha, Learned Advocate for the State
Respondents submits that there is nothing on
record to show why the requisition dated August
3, 2021 had not been acted upon by the
Prescribed Authority.
Mr. Saibal Acharya, Learned Counsel for
the requisitionists submits that the requisition
dated August 3, 2021 had some over writing
and the same was not acted upon. He further
submits that the requisition was not received
by the Prescribed Authority. However Mr.
Acharya has failed to substantiate such
contentions with evidence
There are disputes with regard to the
procedure followed by the requisitionists while
exercising their right under Section 12(2) of the
said Act of 1973. The first requisition died a
natural death.
A second requisition was brought on August
3, 2021, but the fate of the said requisition is not
known. Within seven days thereof, another
requisition was brought. There is nothing on
record to show that the second requisition had
not been acted upon. On the contrary, it appears
that the second requisition was served upon the
Pradhan. There are several procedural
irregularities, which do not justify the action of
the Prescribed Authority.
The requisitions dated May 7, 2021, August
3, 2021 and August 10, 2021 are set aside and
cancelled. The subsequent notice dated August
10, 2021 issued by the Prescribed Authority is
also set aside and cancelled. No meeting will be
held on August 24, 2021.
However, as the pandemic did not permit
the meeting to be held at the first instance, this
Court is of the view that the democratic rights of
the requsitionists to move the motion for removal
of the Pradhan on the ground of lack of
confidence cannot be denied. The Prescribed
Authority is bound under law to perform his
duties by calling a meeting in accordance with
law.
Reliance is placed on the decision of Ujjwal
Kumar Singha versus State of West Bengal & Ors.
reported in (2017) 2 CHN 258 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
Madamus Appeal. It appears that the
appellant/writ petitioners 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 the 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 utilization 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. The
bar under Section 12(11) shall not be applicable.
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. In addition to the
modes of service required by the statute, the
requisitionists shall be at liberty to paste the
requisition at a conspicuous place in the office of
the Pradhan and also at a residence of the
Pradhan.
This writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
All parties are to act on the learned
advocates' communication.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
