Ismail Sk. & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2039 Cal

     01.
17.03.2021.
 Ct. No. 11.
    F.B.

                                 MAT 347 of 2021
                                       with
                               IA No. CAN 1 of 2021


                                Ismail Sk. & Ors.
                                      -Vs.-
                         The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                       Mr. Dipankar Pal,
                       Ms. Kakali Naskar
                                  ..... For the Appellants.

                       Mr. Pantu Deb Roy,
                       Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas
                                  ..... For the State.

                       Mr. Chitta Ranjan Chakraborty,
                       Mr. Partha Sarathi Ghosh,
                       Mr. Dipjyoti Chakraborty
                                  ..... For the Respondent

Nos. 7 to 14.

Mr. Pal, Learned Counsel, appears in support of

the appeal. The appeal is directed against the order of

the Hon'ble Single Bench in the writ petition dated the

3rd of March, 2021. The writ petition was numbered as

WPA 3964 of 2021.

By the said impugned order the challenge of the

present appellants/the writ petitioners to the action for

removal of the writ petitioners/the appellants from the

various Samities under the Kaliachak-III Panchayat

Samity (for short, the said Samity) was set aside. The

Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased to, inter alia, hold

that there was no apparent illegality in the steps taken

by the Prescribed Authority (PA)/who is the concerned

Block Development Officer (BDO) which falls foul of Rule

22(4) of the West Bengal Panchayats (Constitution)

Rules, 1975 (for short the said Rules).

Mr. Pal, Learned Counsel, submits that the

Hon'ble Single Bench erred by failing to notice that the

Motions for removal signed by the private respondents

to the writ petitions/who are also the private

respondents in this appeal, have not been signed

strictly in compliance with Rule 22(4) of the said Rules.

It is submitted that the Motions for removal were found

to carry an additional page indicating the names of the

proposers of the Motions and their respective party

affiliations. It is alleged that the said second/additional

page was not made available to the writ petitioners/the

present appellants while intimating them on behalf of

the PA/the BDO of the respective Motions for removal.

The omission of the second page to the Motions for

removal signed by each of the respective proposers/the

private respondents is submitted by the appellants to

be a grave breach of Rule 22(4)(b) of the said Rules.

The second submission as raised by Learned

Counsel for the appellants is that the PA/the BDO failed

to record his satisfaction prior to convening the meeting

to consider the removal in terms of Rule 22(4)(c) of the

said Rules. In the absence of such satisfaction

expressed by the PA/the BDO, the meeting convened on

the issue shall be deemed to be void ab initio.

It is finally submitted that complete adherence

to the provisions of Rule 22(4) is strictly necessary

because any action under Rule 22(4)(supra) carries

adverse civil consequences against the appellants.

By the previous order of this Court dated the

12th of March, 2021, Mr. Deb Roy, Learned Additional

Government Pleader (AGP), was granted the opportunity

to produce the original records. The original records are

produced along with the Register of the meeting in

issue. From the original record, Mr. Deb Roy

illustratively points out to one notice of Motion and

submits that the Notice of Motion for removal of the writ

petitioners is plural in its connotation and begins with

the word 'We'.

It is further submitted that the requirement of

Rule 22(4) is to propose a Notice of removal by at least

one third of the members of the Gram Panchayat (GP) in

issue and such notice of removal must be signed by at

least three members as proposers. It is pointed out that

in the facts of this case each proposer/the signatory to

the Notice of Motion for removal/the private

respondents have indicated not only their party

affiliations but, also the other members who are co-

signatories to such notice. Both the communication of

their party affiliations as well as the number of total

signatories fulfils the eligibility threshold provided for

such a Notice to be admitted under Rule 22(4) of the

said Rules.

From the Register of the Meeting, Learned AGP

refers to the Minutes dated the 25th of January, 2021

by which the Notice of Motion for removal was placed

before the full elected house of the GP in issue in

presence of the PA/the BDO. The full house of the

elected members of the GP in issue resolved to proceed

with the next meeting to consider the removal motion.

Learned AGP submits that although the law is

trite on the point that the very issuance of a notice

fixing a date for the meeting to consider the removal by

the PA/the BDO is indicative enough of the satisfaction

of the PA/the BDO, in the facts of this case the Minutes

of the meeting dated 25th of January, 2021 (supra)

further underscore such satisfaction.

Mr. Chakraborty, Learned Counsel, appears for

the private respondents to this appeal and submits that

the writ petition is not maintainable since no

jurisdictional infraction in the performance of legal

obligations under the statute by the PA/the BDO have

been pointed out by the present appellants.

Having heard the parties and considering the

materials placed, this Court finds that the technicalities

sought to be relied upon by the present appellants, even

if considered for the sake of argument, do not match up

to the ultimate substantive result of the Notice of

Motion for Removal since the Notice of Motion for

Removal of the present appellants was carried by

majority members of the elected GP in issue strictly in

compliance with the requirement of Rule 22(4). It is not

the case of the appellants that the result of the notice

for removal of the appellants went in any other way as

proposed or, could have gone in any other way if such

Notices(s) were nipped in the bud.

With reference to the non-supply of the so-called

second page to the respective Notices of Motion, this

Court was in a position to place a query to Learned

Counsel for the appellants with regard to the receipt by

each of the appellants of the original notices. This Court

is not persuaded to agree with the stand of the

appellants that the notice containing the first pages

only as shown in the records of the stay application is

the complete notice since, from the original records as

produced on behalf of the PA/the BDO by Learned AGP,

the second page indicating the names of the proposers

along with their party affiliations in terms of Rule

22(4)(supra) has been clearly spelt out.

In the backdrop of the above discussion, this

Court finds that the judgment and order impugned of

the Hon'ble Single Bench requires no interference.

Accordingly, the judgment and order as

impugned in this appeal dated the 3rd of March, 2021

stands affirmed.

MAT 347 of 2021 with CAN 1 of 2021 are thus

dismissed.

Since arguments have proceeded on the basis of

the records as produced, affidavits are not invited.

Other allegations made are deemed to be denied and

disposed.

Let the copy of the original records duly attested

by the PA/the BDO as produced by Learned AGP be

retained with the record.

Let the original record including, the Register of

Meeting be returned to the Learned AGP.

As prayed for, the appellants are granted time to

remove the defects in course of this day.

All parties to act in terms of the copy of the

order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of

all necessary formalities.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) (Subrata Talukdar, J.)