Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rowsanara Bibi & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 January, 2022
31.01.2022
Court. No. 19
Item no. 4
Cp
WPA 1132 of 2022
Rowsanara Bibi & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Dipankar Pal
... for the Petitioners.
Mr. Raja Saha,
Mrs. Rupsha Chakraborty
... for the State.
Affidavit of service is taken on record.
Despite service, none appears on behalf of the
respondent no. 5. The respondent no. 5 is the
Sanchalak of Shilpo-O-Pari Kathamo Uposhamity
under the Champatala Gram Panchayat.
The petitioners are the requisitionists who
brought a motion for removal of the respondent no. 5
in terms of Rule 22(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat
(Constitution) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as
the said Rules). The petitioners allege to have complied
with the provisions of Rule 22(4)(b) of the said Rules
but the Block Development Officer failed to comply
with the provisions of Rule 22(4)(c) of the said Rules.
According to Mr. Pal, learned advocate for the
petitioners, notice of the meeting should have been
issued within five working days from the date of receipt
of the motion by the Block Development Officer. The
meeting for such removal ought to have been held in
the office of the gram panchayat upon affording seven
clear days to the existing members for consideration of
the motion and for taking a decision on it.
Mr. Pal submits that the Block Development
Officer issued a notice fixing the meeting on January
13, 2022, and thereafter, postponed the said meeting
on the grounds mentioned in the notice itself.
According to him, the Block Development Officer has
denied the petitioners their right conferred by Rule
22(4)(a) of the said Rules.
It appears from the said Rules that a meeting of
such nature cannot be held beyond 15 working days.
In this case, the requisition was brought on December
13, 2021. The Block Development Officer issued the
notice for holding the meeting beyond the period of five
working days and, thereafter, once again postponed
the said meeting indefinitely.
In view of the statutory non-compliances by the
Block Development Officer, this court is of the opinion
that the requisition brought by the petitioners on
December 13, 2021 has lost its force. The said
requisition has become infructuous.
The requisition dated December 13, 2021 and all
other communications and orders issued by the Block
Development Officer are set aside and quashed.
However, in my opinion, the provision for
removing an elected representative such as the
Sanchalak 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 Sanchalak 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 Rule 22(4)(a) of the
said Rules. If the same is brought, the prescribed
authority shall proceed in terms of the Rules and
reach the meeting to its logical conclusion. The time
period prescribed by the statute should be mandatorily
adhered to. The bar under Rule 22(4)(g) of the said
Rule shall not be applicable in this case. The covid
guidelines and norms must be followed.
It is further made clear that the Block
Development Officer 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 Block Development Officer without any
delay and laches. It is also made clear that if the
respondent no. 5 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 respondent no. 5 in addition to sending
the same by registered post to the residence of the
respondent no. 5.
As the matter has been disposed of without
granting any order as prayed for in the writ petition
and the petitioners have been directed to proceed
afresh, disposal of the matter in absence of the
respondent no. 5 has not caused any prejudice to the
said respondent, who does not appear despite service.
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.)
