Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kutub Uddin Molla & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 July, 2021
07.07.2021
Court No. 19
Item no.03
CP
WPA 7807 of 2021
with
CAN 1 of 2021
with
CAN 2 of 2021
Kutub Uddin Molla & ors.
VS
The State of West Bengal & ors.
(via video conference)
Mr. Subhrangshu Panda
Mr. Mukteswar Maity
....for the petitioners.
Mr. Md. Sarwar Jahan
...for the pradhan.
Mr. Sirsanya Bandhopadhyay
Mr. Arka Nag
....for the State.
CAN 1 of 2021 and CAN 2 of 2021 are
applications which have been filed with a prayer for
early hearing of the writ petition. As the matter has
been listed before this court and the learned
advocates for the respondents are also present, no
order need be passed in these applications.
Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2021 and CAN 2 of 2021 are
disposed of.
This writ petition was filed challenging a show
cause notice dated February 25, 2021 issued by the
Prescribed Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer,
Diamond Harbour, District - South 24-Parganas,
requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why
necessary proceedings would not be initiated for their
removal. The necessity to issue such a notice was the
failure on the part of the petitioners to attend the
meetings on February 4, 2021, February 12, 2021
and February 19, 2021. During the pendency of the
writ petition, the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner
no. 5 have been removed by two separate orders both
dated July 2, 2021. It is the contention of the
petitioners that the show cause notices were issued
arbitrarily and with mala fide intention with the sole
purpose of ensuring that the petitioners be removed
as a counter blast to their requisition to call a
meeting for removal of the pradhan. It is further
submitted that inability to attend the three
consecutive meetings on February 4, 2021, February
12, 2021 and February 19, 2021 could not be a
ground for their disqualification and removal in view
of the fact that the meetings could not have been
called without a gap of minimum 15 days in between
and with 7 days clear notice before each meeting.
It appears from the records that an answer to
the show cause has been filed by the petitioners but
the points with regard to legality of the meeting and
the other factual aspects which prevented the
petitioners from attending the meetings, have not
been stated properly.
Mr. Bandhopadhyay, learned Junior Standing
Counsel appearing for the State, submits that the
writ petition has become infructuous, insofar as, the
petitioner nos. 1 and 5 are concerned who have been
removed. He next contends that the petitioners
should appear before the prescribed authority and
prove the aspects stated in their replies to the show
cause notices. Whether the petitioners were out of
station as they were facing a life threat or whether
they were unwell etc. are the factual aspects which
the petitioners have to substantiate before the
Prescribed Authority at the hearing. Mr.
Bandhopadhyay further submits that the show cause
itself does not amount to a decision. The Prescribed
Authority could also be convinced to decide in favour
of the petitioners once the hearing is given to the
petitioners.
Mr. Jahan, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the pradhan, submits that the petitioners
are trying to enlarge the scope of this writ petition by
seeking interim orders of stay of the proceedings
before the Prescribed Authority so that the
requisition meeting called by them could be held and
their demand for removal of the pradhan would be
reached to its logical conclusion. Mr. Jahan refers to
the Division Bench judgment of this court and
submits that the contentions of the petitioners that
the Division Bench had directed the Prescribed
Authority to hold the meeting for removal of the
pradhan, cannot be accepted as there are no
directions upon the Prescribed Authority. Only an
observation that the letter by which the requisition
meeting was called by the petitioners should be
taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law
has been made by the Division Bench.
Having heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of in
respect of the petitioner nos. 1 and 5 as being
infructuous with liberty to proceed in accordance
with law against the order of removal.
With regard to the petitioner nos. 2, 3 4 and 6,
in my view, an opportunity should be given to these
petitioners to file another comprehensive reply to the
show cause notices separately, with better
particulars and documents in support of their
contentions. They will be entitled to raise the points
with regard to legality of the meeting, namely,
contravention of the provisions of Section 16 of the
West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and also narrate
and prove their contentions and reasons which
prevented them from attending the meetings. The
said replies are to be filed within a period of two
weeks from date before the Prescribed Authority and
Sub-Divisional Officer, Diamond Harbour, District -
South 24-Parganas. Once the replies are received by
the Prescribed Authority, the Petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4
and 6 and/or their representatives should be given a
hearing and a reasoned order should be passed on
the basis of their answers. The petitioners shall be
allowed to adduce documentary as also oral evidence.
As the Petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 are being
given an opportunity to answer to the show cause
notices afresh, the entire proceedings before the
Prescribed Authority shall be held de novo and any
decision that may have been taken in the meantime,
is set aside.
This order shall not be construed as a decision
on the issues with regard to the removal of the
Pradhan. Although it is submitted by Mr. Jahan that
the B.D.O. has issued an order on July 5, 2021
indicating that the requisition meeting as sought for
by the petitioners could not be held, this court
refrains from making any observation on this aspect.
With the above observations, this writ petition
is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Parties are to act on the server copy of this
order.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
