Tanmay Pradhan vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4989 Cal

 23.9.2021
Court No. 19
Item no.7
   sn
                           WPA No.15061 of 2021

                           TANMAY PRADHAN
                                   VS.
                     THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
                             (via video conference)

                     Mr. Billawadal Bhattacharyya
                     Mr. Debanik Banerjee
                     Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee
                     Mr. Amrit Sinha
                                          ..for the petitioner
                     Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra
                     Ms. Aishwarya Jayshree
                                       ..for the State
                     Mr. Subir Sanyal
                     Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee
                              ..for the respondent nos.8-14

Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Mr. Aditya Mondal ..for the respondent nos. 15-22

The writ petition has been filed challenging the

requisition notice dated September 15, 2021 and the

subsequent notice for removal of the Pradhan dated

September 16, 2021.

Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya, learned Advocate

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that

the proceedings initiated by the prescribed authority

under Section 12(3) and 12(4) of the West Bengal

Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

said Act') stand vitiated as the foundation of the

requisition seeking removal of the Pradhan is based

on the allegation that the Pradhan was corrupt,

partial and incompetent to do developmental work in

the locality.

Reliance has been placed on a decision of this

Court in the matter of Ujjal Mondal vs. State of West

Bengal reported in 2013 (1) CHN (CAL) and Sourendra

Nath Das vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. passed

in WPA 11903 of 2021.

According to Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate, who

appears on behalf of the requisitionists, the intention

to remove was sufficiently indicated in the requisition

notice and the other allegations against the Pradhan

could easily be ignored. Thus, it is submitted on

behalf of the requisitionists that the provisions of

Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act,

1973 allows such kind of requisition when the only

requirement was an intention to remove the Pradhan

on account of loss of confidence. He submits that the

other portions of the requisition are redundant and

neither the prescribed authority nor the Court

should take cognizance of such statements.

Mr. Mitra, learned advocate for the state

respondents submits that the notice is not stigmatic

as such. He distinguishes the decision of Ujjal

Mondal (supra) on the ground that in Ujjal Mondal

(supra), the allegations were more serious. According

to him, in this case the allegations are corruption

resulting in incompetence, which are not stigmatic.

Mr. Mitra refers to a decision of a Division Bench of

this court in the matter of Ujjwal Kumar Singha Vs.

State of West Bengal, reported in (2017) 2 CHN 258

(DB). In the said decision the court observed that 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. According to Mr. Mitra, one of the

challenges before the Division Bench was that the

requisition notice carried a stigma but the Division

Bench did not set aside the requisition.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing

on behalf of some of the requisitionists submits that

the requisitionists do not enjoy majority. However,

this point is not to be decided in the proceeding. The

requisitionists dispute such contention. Such right of

the Pradhan to remain in the office shall be decided

only in an appropriate meeting.

In the matter of Ujjal Mondal (supra), the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court held that the requisition

notice/no confidence motion was entertainable only

when there was no foundation for bringing the

motion. The relevant portion is quoted below:

"24. Having regard to section 101 of the said Act, we are of the view that a 'no confidence motion' is entertainable for removal of Prodhan where there should not be any ground or foundation of bringing 'no confidence motion' and if 'no confidence motion' is carried on that ground, it will invite civil consequence or evil consequence to the Office Bearers relating to his political career naturally and as such, natural justice principle will have play in the matter, thereby a breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

Having perused the judgment of the Division

Bench in Ujjwal Kumar Singha (supra), I do not find

that the Division Bench decided the point as to

whether the requisition which carries some allegation

against the Pradhan could be entertained. It appears

that there was a challenge to the 'no confidence

motion' on the ground that the same was carrying

allegations, but the Hon'ble Division Bench held that

the learned Single Judge had dealt with the issues

and had dismissed the writ petition with reasons.

However, there is no observations as to whether the

requisition, even if, it contained any allegation or

stigma could be entertained contrary to what was

decided in Ujjal Mondal (supra).

This court in the matter of Sourendra Nath

Das v. The State of West Bengal & ors. (WPA 11903

of 2021) held as follows:

"Having considered the submissions made by the petitioner and the learned advocates for the prescribed authority, this court is of the opinion that a reading of the requisition notice (which is in bengali), as a whole, would indicate that in the opinion of the members, the pradhan has proved to be incompetent as he did not perform his duties and developmental works, causing deprivation to the people of the locality from the benefits all governmental projects, and thus the members had lost confidence in their leader and wanted his removal.

The effect of such a requisition is that the pradhan being incompetent to perform his duties had caused suffering to the people and would be consequently removed as the members lost confidence on account of such non-performance. The pradhan has a career. If the requisition is allowed to stand, it would

be a reflection of his inability and incompetence in performing his duties as a leader of the gram panchayat. This is the foundation of the requisition. The 'no confidence' is based on the allegation of incompetence and inability of the 5 pradhan and the suffering caused to the people in the locality due to such incompetence. This is not a simple requisition for removal of the pradhan. The removal if carried through in the meeting will carry a stigma that the pradhan was removed as he failed to perform his duties and developmental works.

In my opinion, the decision of Ujjal Mondal (supra) applies. Even if the allegations are not as serious as misappropriation or misconduct, incapacity or incompetence of a political leader to perform works in the locality which has cause disillusionment, unhappiness and suffering to the people in the locality are allegations which can be viewed with seriousness. The future prospects of the pradhan might be jeopardized. He will also not get a chance to explain his conduct. Thus, the requisition notice and subsequent notice are set aside for the reasons stated hereinabove."

Having considered the rival submissions of the

learned advocates for the respective parties, this

Court is of the opinion that the issue before the

Hon'ble Division Bench in Ujjal Mondal (supra) with

regard to the requisition for removal of the Pradhan

was similar to the one raised by the petitioner in the

writ petition. Here foundation of the 'no confidence'

and the intention to remove the Pradhan are charges

of corruption, partiality and non-co-operation. The

Pradhan can be removed by the requisitionists if they

have lost confidence in him by bringing a requisition

with the intention to remove. As soon as there are

allegations of corruption, partiality, incapacity or

non-co-operation, the same becomes stigmatic. The

Pradhan is a politically elected representative of the

people and allegations of such nature may have a

negative effect on his future prospects or on his

credibility as a member of the Panchayat as well.

Thus, having considered the requisition notice

as a whole, it indicates that the ground for removal of

the Pradhan is not only lack of confidence but there

are charge of corruption, partiality and incompetence

of the Pradhan to perform developmental work in the

locality. Such allegations may also enrage and turn

the people in the locality against the Pradhan.

Thus, in my view, with due respect to the

submissions made by the learned advocate for the

requisitionists, the requisition cannot be sustained in

law only on the ground that there are some

allegations against the Pradhan which operate as a

stigma.

Under such circumstances, the requisition

date September 15, 2021 as also the notice of the

meeting for removal dated September 16, 2021 are

set aside and quashed. This matter is entertained

solely for the reasons indicated hereinabove but the

Court has indicated in various orders that any

attempt on the part of either the Pradhan or the

prescribed authority to stall a meeting except in

accordance with law, would be a direct curtailment of

the democratic rights of the requisitionists and the

same shall not be permitted in any form.

The requisitionists are granted liberty to bring

a fresh requisition with immediate effect under

Section 12(2) of the said Act. If such requisition is

brought, the prescribed authority shall act and

proceed in terms of the provisions of Sections 12(3)

and 12(4) of the said Act within the time period

prescribed by the statute. The bar under Section

12(11) of the said Act shall not be applicable.

It is 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 requisionists as also the prescribed

authority without any delay and laches. It is also

made clear that if the Pradhan tries to evade service

of the requisition then the requisitionists shall be

entitled to serve the same in the office through his

Secretary or assistants and in the event the service is

not accepted then the requisitionists will be entitled

to paste the motion in the office of the Pradhan at a

conspicuous place in addition to sending the same by

registered post as required by law.

This writ petition is disposed of.

There will be, however, no order as to costs.

All parties are directed to act on the basis of

the server copy of this order.

All parties are directed to act on the basis of

learned advocate's communication.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)