Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mahidul Islam Dafadar & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 June, 2022
Item No. 18
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
06.06.2022
Ct-24
WPA 4055 of 2022
Mahidul Islam Dafadar & Ors.
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Usof Ali Dewan
Mr. Amanul Islam
Mr. Sourav Mukherjee
... for the petitioners.
Mr. Sarwar Jahan
Mr. Sumanta Das
... for the respondent no. 8.
Affidavit of service is taken on record.
None appears on behalf of the State respondents despite
service.
The writ petition has been filed by the requisitionists
who brought a requisition on May 6, 2021 for removal of the
Pradhan of Hatisala-2 Gram Panchayat, District-Nadia. It is
alleged that the prescribed authority sat tight over the matter.
Hence, the petitioners have come up before this Court.
The meeting for removal of the Pradhan cannot be held
at this stage as the period prescribed under the statute has
expired.
The Court does not find any reason as to why the
prescribed authority did not call the meeting. In the meantime
Section 12(3) and Section 12(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat
Act, 1973 has not been complied with.
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 also
expired, the requisition dated May 6, 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 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 the
Assistant Secretary 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.
Sh (Amrita Sinha, J.)
