Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Madhabi Halder Purkait & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 February, 2022
15.02.2022
Court No. 19
Item no.08
CP
WPA 1450 of 2022
Madhabi Halder Purkait & ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy
Mr. Debashis Banerjee
Mr. Supreem Naskar
Mr. N. Mondal
......for the petitioners.
Mr. Mahim Sasmal
....for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Mr. Jahar Lal Dey
Mr. Abdus Salam
....for the State respondents.
The petitioners are the majority members of the
Nandakumrpur Gram Panchayat, Dist. - South 24
Parganas. The petitioners are aggrieved by the
inaction of the prescribed authority in taking steps
on the requisition for removal of the Upa-Pradhan of
the said gram panchayat brought on January 7,
2022. The petitioners pray that the prescribed
authority be directed to convene the meeting in terms
of Section 12(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').
Mr. Sasmal, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the Upa-Pradhan, submits that the
requisition cannot be acted upon for the reasons
stated hereunder:
a) The requisition is stigmatic;
b) One of the signatories, namely, Smt.
Paramita Sahoo alleged that her signature
on the requisition was obtained by force;
c) Smt. Paramita Sahoo wrote a letter to the
learned Registrar General of the High Court
stating that her name be deleted from the
array of writ petitioners in this instant writ
petition.
The requisition indicates that there are
some comments against the Upa-Pradhan,
although they are not seriously stigmatic.
Nevertheless, any opinion on the activities of the
Upa-Pradhan may lead to some serious
consequences. Thus, the requisition as per the
provisions of law is liable to be set aside.
Secondly, the prayer of the petitioner for a
direction upon the prescribed authority to
convene a meeting on the basis of the said
requisition cannot be allowed also because the
statutory periods prescribed under Section 12(3),
12(4) and 12(10) of the said Act have expired.
Finally, there are controversies with regard
to the signature of Smt. Paramita Sahoo. Thus, in
any event, leaving aside the disputed questions of
obtaining the signature of Smt. Paramita Sahoo
by force, the requisition has died a natural death
due to efflux of time.
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."
Under such circumstance, the requisition dated
January 7, 2022, as also subsequent actions, if any,
are set aside and cancelled.
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 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(10) of the said Act. The
bar under Section 12(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 Upa-Pradhan
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
Upa-Pradhan in addition to sending the same by
registered post to the residence of the Upa-Pradhan.
This writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
All parties are to act on the basis of the server
copy of this order.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
