Tapas Ghosh & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5536 Cal

 07.10.2021
Court No. 19
Item no.19
   CP
                             WPA 14598 of 2021

                              Tapas Ghosh & ors.
                                      Vs.
                           State of West Bengal & ors.



               Mr. Swapan Kumar Mazumdar

                                        ......for the petitioners.

               Mr. Pappu Adhikari

                                        .....for the respondent no.4.

Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata Mr. Swapan Pal

....for the State.

The petitioners are the requisitionists, 14 out

of 21 members of Nabadwip Panchayat Samity,

brought a motion before the prescribed authority

under Section 101(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat

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

May 20, 2021 for removal of the sabhapati of the

Nabadwip Panchayat Samiti.

It is urged that the prescribed authority failed

to act in terms of Section 101(2) and 101(3) of the

said Act. It is further contended that directions

should be passed upon the prescribed authority to

accept the requisition dated May 20, 2021 and

proceed in accordance with law by convening a

meeting for removal of the sabhapati.

Mr. Adhikari, learned advocate appearing on

behalf of the sabhapati, respondent no. 4 herein,

submits that the requisition dated May 20, 2021 has

lost its force as the prescribed period under Section

101(10) expired long ago.

Mr. Mahata, learned senior Government

advocate, also submits that the prescribed authority

has not complied with the provisions of Section

101(3), 101(4) and 101(10) of the said Act and as

such, the entire requisition has become infructuous.

Having considered the rival contentions of the

parties, this court is of the view that the requisition

has lost its force. More than four months have lapsed

since the requisition was brought. However, the court

is conscious of the rights of the requisitionists to

remove the sabhapati strictly in accordance with law.

It is the democratic right of the requisitionists,

to seek the removal of their leader who has lost their

confidence, in accordance with law. 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."

In view of the above facts, this court sets aside

the requisition dated May 20, 2021 and all actions

taken subsequently pursuant to the same.

Under such circumstances, the requisitionists

are granted liberty to bring a fresh requisition in

accordance with law. If the said requisition is

brought, the prescribed authority shall reach the

requisition to its logical conclusion upon complying

with the provisions of Sections 101(3) and 101(4)

onwards of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, by

strictly adhering to the time limit fixed by the statute

under Section 101(10) of the said Act. The bar under

Section 101(11) shall not apply as this is not a case

that the requisition failed for want of quorum or

could not be carried through.

It is further made clear that the prescribed

authority shall be entitled to seek police protection

and if such request is made, the police authority

shall render all support to the requisitionists as also

to the prescribed authority without any delay and

laches.

It is also made clear that if the sabhapati tries

to evade service of requisition then the requisitionists

shall be entitled to serve the same in the office

through the secretary or assistant and if, such

service is not accepted, then the requisitionists will

be entitled to paste the same at the office of the

sabhapati in addition to sending the same by

registered post to the residence of the sabhapati.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

However, there will be no order as to costs.

All the parties are directed to act on the basis

of the learned advocate's communication.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)