Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sabina Khatun (Pradhan) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 October, 2021
S/L 633
04.10.2021
Court. No. 19
srm
W.P.A. No. 16402 of 2021
Sabina Khatun (Pradhan)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Dipankar Pal,
Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee
... for the Petitioner.
Mr. Raja Saha,
Mr. S.P. Lahiri
... for the State.
Mr. Subrata Ghosh
...for the Respondent Nos.4 to 13.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is kept with the
record.
The writ petitioner is the Pradhan of Sambalpur Gram
Panchayat, District-Malda. The petitioner is aggrieved by the
multiple requisitions brought by some of the members of the
said Gram Panchayat without any order of the prescribed
authority cancelling the prior requisition.
According to the petitioner, a requisition was brought
on September 7, 2021. The fate of the said requisition was
not intimated to the petitioner. Thereafter, another
requisition was brought on September 22, 2021 and the
second requisition was brought without any order of
cancellation of the earlier requisition and also without
service of the requisition upon the petitioner.
Mr. Saha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
prescribed authority, submits that admittedly no steps were
taken by the prescribed authority either by acting upon the
requisition dated September 7, 2021 or by setting aside or
cancelling the same.
Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondent Nos.4 to 13/requisitionists, submits that the
Pradhan refused to accept the requisition, as a result of
which, a fresh requisition had to be brought on September
22, 2021. He further submits that refusal of the Pradhan to
accept the requisition would amount to good service.
This Court is of the opinion that the requisitionists do
not have the liberty to bring multiple requisitions on their
own, without any order from the prescribed authority as to
cancellation or lapse of previous requisition.
Under such circumstances, the requisition dated
September 7, 2021 and September 22, 2021 are set aside and
cancelled. The notice dated September 22, 2021 issued by the
prescribed authority fixing October 5, 2021 as the date for
holding the meeting for removal of the Pradhan is also set
aside and cancelled.
This Court is conscious of the rights of the
requisitionists to remove their Pradhan/leader as per the
statute. Such democratic right has been recognised by Courts
of law.
These institutions must run on democratic principles.
In democracy all persons heading public bodies can continue
provided they enjoy the confidence of the persons who
comprise such bodies. This is the essence of democratic
republicanism. In my opinion, the provision for removing an
elected representative such as the Pradhan is of fundamental
importance to ensure the democratic functioning of the
institution as well as to ensure the transparency and
accountability in the functions performed by the elected
representatives.
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.
It is made clear that as this is a festive season, the
notified holidays will be excluded while serving the
requisition upon the prescribed authority, and accordingly
taken into consideration while computing the time frame as
mentioned in the statute.
This Court is not making any observation on the right
of the Pradhan to continue in her 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 the residence of the Pradhan, in addition to
sending the same by registered post to the office and
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.)
