Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jamuna Rabidas vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 7 January, 2022
S/l-2
07.01.2022
TN
WPA No.211 of 2022
Jamuna Rabidas
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others
(Via Video Conference)
Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta,
Mr. Anindya Sundar Das,
Mr. Anindya Bose,
Mr. Debapriya Samanta,
Mr. Diptendu Mandal
.... for the petitioner
Mr. Jaharlal De,
Mr. Shamim Ul Bari
.... for the State
Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept
on record.
The primary contention of the petitioner is that
some requisitionists' notice of a no-confidence motion
against the petitioner, who is the Panchayat Pradhan
of the Mahisasthali Gram Panchayat, is based upon
allegations and foundations of nepotism and
dictatorship, which tantamount to casting a stigma on
the petitioner, and hence vitiate the notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places
reliance on three judgments, which are as follows:
2
(1) (2013) 1 CHN 458 (DB) [Ujjal Mondal vs. State
of West Bengal;
(2) Zamil Firdosh vs. The State of West Bengal &
Ors.[W.P. No.31248(W) of 2014] - unreported;
and
(3) Pradip Dihidar vs. The State of West Bengal
& Ors. [W.P.A. 17470 of 2021] - also
unreported.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
authorities submits that the allegations, ipso facto, do
not constitute a stigma on the petitioner, since the
said allegations are merely for the purpose of bringing
the no-confidence motion and speaks of the
perceptions of the requisitionists of the no-confidence
motion. No stigma by dint of any judicial and/or other
order by any competent authority is associated with
such allegation and, as such, it cannot be said that
the same puts a stigma on the petitioner.
Although the legal contentions of both the
parties are impressive, precisely for that reason, it has
to be observed that the petitioner has made out a
strong prima facie case for the writ petition to be heard
on merits on the above question.
Since the writ petition will become virtually
infructuous in the event the no-confidence motion is
held and the requisition notice impugned in the writ
petition (Annexure-P2 at page - 21) is carried out in
the meantime, the respondent-authorities are
restrained by an order of injunction from giving effect
and/or further effect to the impugned requisition
notice of meeting on motion for removal of Pradhan of
Mahisasthali Gram Panchayat, District: Murshidabad
vide memo no.3978/1(5) dated 28.12.2021 issued by
the Prescribed Authority & Block Development Officer,
Bhagwangola-I Development Block, being Annexure-
P3 to the writ petition, till February 15, 2022 or until
further order, whichever is earlier.
Although service has already been effected on all
the respondents, since none appears today on behalf
of the requisitioning respondents in regard to the no-
confidence motion, the petitioner shall serve a fresh
notice on the absentee respondents indicating that the
matter shall next be enlisted before the Regular Bench
on January 18, 2022 and file an affidavit-of-service on
the next date of hearing.
This order, it is made clear, shall not prevent the
requisitionists/respondents from issuing and acting
on any further requisition notice, which does not
contain any stigma for the removal of the petitioner by
a no-confidence motion.
The parties as well as all concerned shall act on
the written communication of the learned Advocates
for the parties, coupled with server copies of this
order, without insisting upon prior production of a
certified copy for the purpose of implementation.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
