Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pashupati Das & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 January, 2022
S/L 22
14.01.2022
Court. No. 19
suvayan
WPA 18922 of 2021
Pashupati Das & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Through Video Conference)
Sk. Anwar Ali
Mr. Jayanta Kumar Das
...for the Petitioners
Mr. Subhojit Saha
... for respondent no.8
Mr. Supratim Dhar
...for the State
Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with
the record.
The petitioners are some of the elected members of
Usmanpur Gram Panchayat. The petitioners are aggrieved
because the prescribed authority did not take any steps on
the basis of the requisition dated November 8, 2021. The
petitioners submit that the prescribed authority must be
directed to convene a meeting on the basis of the requisition
for removal of the Pradhan.
Mr. Dhar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the State/respondents and Mr. Saha learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondent no.8, submit that the
requisition has lost its force. According to the learned
Advocates, the requisition was brought on November 8, 2021
and the same cannot be revived after a period of two months
when the law prescribed that the entire action must be taken
on the basis of the said requisition within the statutory period
of thirty days under Section 12(10) of the West Bengal
Panchyat Act, 1973.
Mr. Saha and Mr. Dhar both submit that the
petitioners had levelled some allegations against the Pradhan
which cannot be sustained in law, as a stigmatic requisition
cannot be acted upon.
This Court finds that the petitioners do not want to
proceed on the basis of the requisition which was stigmatic,
but are seeking directions of this Court for reaching the
requisition brought on November 8, 2021 to its logical
conclusion.
Having considered the contentions of the parties, this
Court is of the opinion that the requisition cannot be revived
at this stage. The requisition has lost its force.
The Court does not find any reason as to why the
prescribed authority did not call the meeting and allowed the
statutory period to lapse.
It is the democratic right of the requisitionists, to seek
the removal of their leader who has lost their confidence.
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."
As the outer limit of thirty days provided under
Section 12(10) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 has
expired, the requisition dated November 8, 2021 as also
subsequent actions, if any, are set aside and cancelled.
Under such circumstances, 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 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 the office 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.
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.)
