Pashupati Das & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 84 Cal

S/L 21
14.01.2022
Court. No. 19
suvayan
                                  WPA 18921 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. Jaharlal De Mr. Srikanta Paul ...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 Upa-Pradhan.

Mr. De, 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. The requisition was brought on November

8, 2021 and the same could not be revived after a period of

two months when the law prescribed that 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.

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, 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."

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 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.)