Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shaktipada Das & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 January, 2022
S/L 4
25.01.2022
Court. No. 19
GB
WPA 924 of 2022
Shaktipada Das & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Through Video Conference)
Mr. Dipankar Pal
Mr. Amit Bikram Mahata.
... for the Petitioners.
Mr. Raja Saha,
Mr. Shayak Chakraborty.
... for the State.
The writ petitioners are the requisitionists, who
brought a motion on December 27, 2021 under Section 12(2)
of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as the said Act), for removal of the Pradhan of
Chandrahati-I Gram Panchayat.
The prescribed authority upon satisfying himself
about the compliance of the provisions of Section 12(2) of the
said Act, issued a notice dated December 28, 2021 under
Form 1E, Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5B of the West Bengal
Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975. The date of the
meeting was fixed on January 11, 2022. By a letter dated
January 7, 2022, the prescribed authority postponed the
meeting as the Chandrahati-I Gram Panchayat under the
Chinsurah Mogra block had been notified as a micro-
containment zone as per the order of the District Magistrate,
2
Hooghly. Thereafter the prescribed authority did not notify a
subsequent date.
It is submitted by the petitioners that the
Chandrahati-I Gram Panchayat was not an area which fell
within the containment zone and the District Magistrate's
order was not applicable in this case. It is prayed that
directions be issued for holding the meeting.
Mr. Saha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
State respondents submits that Chandrahati-I Gram
Panchayat was made a containment zone by the Block
Development Officer in view of the rising infections and as
such, the meeting could not be held.
This Court is not an expert to assess the situation that
had prevailed at the particular time when the meeting was
postponed. However, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact
that during the first week of January, 2022, there was huge
surge in the infection. The statutory period will expire on
January 26, 2022 which is a holiday. Thus the prayer of the
petitioner cannot be allowed. Thus, without going into any
further deliberation on the reasons as to why the meeting
was postponed, this Court is of the opinion that justice would
be sub-served if the requisitionists are granted liberty to
bring a fresh requisition in accordance with law. The
Government circulars do not debar holding of such official
meetings at present and the situation has improved. The
requisition dated December 27, 2021 and all subsequent
notices are set aside and quashed. It also appears that the
requisition contains allegations against the Pradhan which
are stigmatic. Such requisition cannot be acted upon.
However, 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. 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. If the Pradhan has
lost support of the majority of the members, he cannot
remain in office for a single day.
In the decision of Ujjwal Kumar Singha v. State of
W.B. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 4636, 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 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).
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 utilisation by the Mediation and
Conciliation Committee of the High Court."
The writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the
requisitionists to bring a fresh requisition in accordance with
the provisions of Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat
Act, 1973. If the same is brought, the prescribed authority
shall proceed in terms of Section 12(3), 12(4) and so on and
reach the meeting to its logical conclusion. The time period
prescribed by the statute should be mandatorily adhered to.
The bar under Section 12(11) of the said Act shall not be
applicable in this case. The covid guidelines and norms must
be followed.
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 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 Pradhan in addition to sending the same by
registered post to the residence of the Pradhan.
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 learned
advocate's communication.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
