Shefali Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 6641 Cal

24.12.2021
sayandeep
Sl. No. 06
Ct. No. 05
                            WPA 20653 of 2021

                               Shefali Roy
                                    Vs.
                       The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                           [Via Video Conference]


             Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya
             Mr. Mohinoor Rahaman
             Mr. Shahan Sha
             Ms. Maria Rahaman
                                           ..... for the petitioner

             Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra
             Mr. Subhabrata Das
                                                .... for the State
             Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta
             Mr. Niladri Saha
                            ..... for the respondent Nos. 6 to 13

The petitioner seeks cancellation of a

notice dated 14th December, 2021 being a notice

by some of the respondent to remove the

petitioner as the Pradhan of the concerned Gram

Panchayat. The ground for seeking cancellation

of the said requisition is that the notice contains

allegations which are of a stigmatic nature.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

relies on a Division Bench Judgment of this

Court in Ujjal Mondal vs. State of West Bengal,

(2013)1 CHN (CAL) 458; and a decision of a Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 13099 of

2021 (Mukti Halder vs. The State of West Bengal),

in support of the contention that a notice for

requisition for removal can be set aside on the

ground of notice containing allegations which

are stigmatic in nature.

Learned counsel appearing for the State

relies on a Division Bench Judgment of this

Court in Ujjwal Kumar Singha vs. State of West

Bengal, (2017) 2 CHN (CAL) 258 as well as a

second Division Bench Judgment passed in MAT

551 of 2015; Manju Chowdhury & Ors. vs. Salil

Mishra & Ors.. According to learned counsel, the

notice for removal cannot be set aside only on

the ground of stigmatic allegations.

The point which is under consideration is

whether a motion of no confidence for removal of

Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan under Section 12 of

the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 can be set

aside on the ground of stigmatic allegations

contained in the said motion. In the present

case, the allegations which would appear from

the motion dated 8th December, 2021 is that the

Pradhan carries out her work in an autocratic

fashion and does not co-operate with the

requisitionists in any manner. The notice is in

the vernacular and the Court has translated the

words used in the notice. In Ujjal Mondal, the

allegations against the Sahakari Sabhapati of

the Panchayat Samity related to allegations in

relation to criminal proceedings involving moral

turpitude. The Division Bench held that the

requisition notice should be set aside on the

ground of the "civil consequences or evil

consequences" to the concerned office bearers

and the prejudice which would result in his

political career. In Ujjwal Kumar Singha vs. State

of West Bengal (2017)2 CHN CAL 258, the

Division Bench considered the importance of an

institution running on democratic principles.

This Court is of the view that Section 12(2)

lays down the procedure for removal of the

Pradhan and the qualification of the

requisitionists who seek such removal. The

language of Section 12(2), is "........ shall sign a

motion in writing expressing their lack of

confidence against the Pradhan...... or recording

their intention to remove the Pradhan......." . The

words expressing lack of confidence involves

articulation of the loss of trust and confidence in

the Pradhan. The issue of stigma is a question

of degree. The words used in the notice must be

of such a nature as to cause immediate or future

prejudice to the person who is sought to be

removed. The allegations must be personal,

vicious or with an intention to destroy the

reputation of the Pradhan. This Court draws

support from the decision in Pratap Chandra

Mehta vs. State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh

& Ors.; 2011(9) SCC 573 which drew a

distinction between a "no confidence motion"

and a removal as a result of a disciplinary

action. The Supreme Court qualified that a no-

confidence motion cannot be equated in law to a

removal for a disciplinary action or a censure

and that both the concepts cannot be used

interchangeably.

In the present case, the allegations are

that the Pradhan is working in an autocratic

fashion and does not co-operate with the work of

the requisitionists. These two allegations cannot

amount to any kind of stigma. The words used

are not such as would result in either a loss of

reputation or cause damage to the future career

prospects of the petitioner.

Although reliance has been placed by the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on

Mukti Halder, the allegations therein were more

serious and the Court relied on Ujjal Mondal to

hold that the allegations in the said notice were

stigmatic in nature. As stated above, the

standards for assessing the nature of allegations

is a question of degree and would therefore

depend on the particular allegations which are

brought before a Court. Needless to say the

function of a Gram Panchayat is based on

democratic principles and a disgruntled group of

requisitionists are entitled to bring a motion of

no-confidence against a Pradhan provided the

conditions under Section 12(2) of the Act are

satisfied and the allegations in the notice are not

such as would cause damage to the reputation

of the Pradhan.

Being unable to find allegations of such

nature in the present writ petition, WPA 20653

of 2021 is dismissed without any order as to

costs.

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)