Pabitra Kar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3148 Cal

     03
08.06.2021
 Ct. No.23
     pg.
                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                              APPELLATE SIDE
                         (Through Video Conference)

                              WPA 10552 of 2021

                                   Pabitra Kar
                                       Vs.
                         The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                    Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya
                    Mr. Debanik Banerjee
                                ... For the petitioner

                    Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay
                    Ms. Sudeshna Mazumder
                                ... For the State


                    The petitioner is a member of Boyal-I Gram

             Panchayat in the district of Purba Medinipur, being the

             respondent no.4 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Gram

Panchayat"). The petitioner was thereafter elected as the

Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat. The petitioner says

that the private respondents, being the respondents no.5

to 13, are also the members and office bearers of the said

Gram Panchayat. The petitioner further says that the

respondents no.5 to 13 have expressed no-confidence and

passed a motion as against the petitioner. The said

respondents have applied to the concerned Authority

requisitioning for a meeting to be convened for removing

the petitioner from being the Pradhan of the said Gram

Panchayat. The petitioner also says that under the

provisions of Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat

Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), one

copy of the motion is required to be delivered to the

concerned office bearer either by hand or by registered

post at the Gram Panchayat office and another copy shall

be sent by registered post at his residential address. The

no-confidence motion, according to the petitioner, has not

been served on the petitioner either at the office of the

Gram Panchayat or at his residential address. The

petitioner received a memo bearing no.855(10) dated 28th

May, 2021 issued by the respondent no.3 informing the

petitioner that a meeting in terms of rule 5B(2) of the

West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975 for

convening a meeting to consider the motion for removal of

the petitioner. The said meeting was scheduled on 7th

June, 2021 at 11.30 a.m. at the office of the said Gram

Panchayat.

The petitioner says that owing to the severe

restrictions imposed by the State Government, the

respondent no.3 ought not to have called for holding a

meeting on 7th June, 2021. The petitioner further says

that for severe traffic restrictions, it was very difficult for

attending the meeting scheduled on 7th June, 2021. The

petitioner also relies upon a notice issued by the

Prescribed Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatal,

Paschim Medinipur, on 19th May, 2021 cancelling the

meeting scheduled on 21st May, 2021 on a no-confidence

motion for removal of Sabhapati of Ghatal Panchayat

Samiti and submits that the action of the State

respondents in the petitioner's case is arbitrary. The

petitioner is sought to be victimised when the provisions

of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the West Bengal

Epidemic Diseases Covid-19 Regulations, 2020 are

operational. The petitioner also says that the meeting

having been convened in violation of the mandatory

provisions of Section 12(2) of the said Act and ignoring

the strict restrictions now prevailing in the State should

be declared to be null and void and cancelled. The

decision, if any, taken in the said meeting should be set

aside.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the

petitioner upon realising the fact that majority of the

members of the said Gram Panchayat had lost confidence

in the petitioner as the Pradhan, the petitioner cannot

stay in power as the Prodhan. In order to delay the

process of his removal, the petitioner is trying to take

recourse of technical grounds. The petitioner was not in

the office and, as such, he could not be served with a

copy of the motion thereat. A copy of the motion had been

despatched through registered post to the petitioner's

residential address and the office of the said Gram

Panchayat on 24th May, 2021. The fate of the postal

article so despatched is, however, not known as of now. It

is further submitted that the notice issued by the

respondent no.3 was refused by the petitioner and, as

such, the same had to be pasted on a conspicuous place

at the residence of the petitioner. The meeting scheduled

on 7th June, 2021, according to the State respondents,

had taken place which was attended by eight members

out of total ten members and all of them have expressed

their view in favour of removing the petitioner from being

the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat. However, in

view of the order dated 4th June, 2021, the resolution

passed in the meeting has not been given effect to.

In support of holding of the meeting pursuant to

the requisition, the State respondents have cited four

judgments, respectively, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 663;

2017 (2) CHN 103; 2017 (2) CHN 258 and a judgment

reported in 2016 SCC Online (Calcutta) 4950 (Panchu

Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors.). The State prays

for dismissal of the writ petition.

After hearing the parties, the matter is adjourned

for further consideration till 10th June, 2021.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)