Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Archana Das & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 October, 2021

S/L 5
07.10.2021
Court. No. 19
GB
                                WPA 16011 of 2021

                                  Archana Das & Ors.
                                          Vs.
                            The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                             (Through Video Conference)

                Mr. Samiran Mondal,
                Mr. Abhinaba Dan.
                                                      ... for the Petitioners.

                Mr. Raja Saha,
                Mr. Supratim Dhar.
                                                          ... for the State.

                Mr. Pratip Kumar Chatterjee.
                                           ... for the Respondent No.6.

The petitioners are the requisitionists, who brought a

motion for removal of the Pradhan of Futigeda Gram

Panchayat. The petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction of

the prescribed authority, that is the Block Development

Officer, Jaynagar Block -II in frustrating their motion.

It is contended that, this is the third motion, which

was brought on September 27, 2021, but the prescribed

authority failed and neglected to take steps in accordance

with law.

Mr. Saha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the

State respondents denies the allegations. He submits that the

first requisition was set aside by the Court in view of the

stigma attached to it. The second requisition was brought by

the requisitionists but the prescribed authority failed to issue

notice within five working days. However, the third

requisition, was brought by the petitioners, which was a

subsequent notice and the said notice could not be acted

upon in view of the fact that, an earlier requisition dated

September 17, 2021 was already pending.

The Court is in agreement with Mr. Saha to the extent

that repeated requisitions cannot brought, unless leave is

granted by the Court. The law does not provide that in case of

failure of the prescribed authority to act on a particular

requisition, the requisitionists could automatically bring a

second requisition within ten days from the earlier

requisition. The Court also notes further submission of Mr.

Saha that the prescribed authority was unable to act on the

requisition dated September 27, 2021, in view of the

pendency of the requisition dated September 17, 2021.

Mr. Saha assures the Court that the prescribed

authority shall act and proceed in accordance with law. The

District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas shall also ensure that

the prescribed authority acts and proceeds in accordance

with law.

The Court does not find any reason why the

prescribed authority first of all did not act on the basis of the

requisition dated September 17, 2021 by satisfying himself

about the compliance of the provisions of Section 12(2) of the

West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

the 'said Act') and then thereafter issue a notice convening

the meeting within five working days. Such explanation is

not before the Court. However, keeping the writ petition

pending in order to allow the prescribed authority to explain

his conduct would cause unnecessary delay as the Court

recognises that the requisitionists have a right to bring a

motion of no confidence against their Pradhan under the law

and their attempts have been frustrated. Thus, the

requisitions dated September 17, 2021 and September 27,

2021 are set aside and cancelled in view of the non-

compliance of Section 12(3) and 12(4) of the said Act.

The Court does not find any reason as to why the

prescribed authority did not take proper steps. Section 12(3)

of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 has not been

complied with and the meeting has not yet been called.

It is the democratic right of the requisitionists, to seek

the removal of their leader who has lost their confidence.

They are entitled to enforce such right and any delay by the

authorities will actually frustrate such right and destroy the

democratic set up of the institution. 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

explains why this provision of no-confidence motion has

been provided under the law.

In the decision of Ujjwal Kumar Singha v. State of

W.B. reported in 2017 SCC Online Cal 4636, it was held that:

"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 Mandamus Appeal. It appears that the appellant/writ petitioner 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 this 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).

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 utilisation by the Mediation and Conciliation Committee of the High Court."

Under such circumstances, the requisitionists are

granted liberty to bring a fresh requisitions in accordance

with law. If the said requisitions are brought, the prescribed

authority shall reach the requisitions to their logical

conclusion upon complying with the provisions of Sections

12(3) and 12(4) onwards of the West Bengal Panchayat Act,

1973, by strictly adhering to the time limit fixed by the

statute under Section 12(4) and 12 (10) of the said Act. The

bar under Section 12(11) shall not apply, as this is not a case

that the requisitions failed for want of quorum or could not

be carried through.

It is further made clear that the prescribed authority