Rumi Bera (Giri) vs The State Of West Bengal & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3507 Cal

24.06.2022
Item No.19
Court No.6.
   AB
                                  M.A.T. 909 of 2022
                                         With
                                  I A CAN 1 of 2022

                                 Rumi Bera (Giri)
                                       Vs
                        The State of West Bengal & Others

                      Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta,
                      Mr. Sanat Kumar Roy,
                      Mr. Abhishek Banerjee ...for the Appellant.

                      Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata,
                      Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata...for the State.

                      Mr. Saibal Acharyya,
                      Mr. Pradip Paul...for the Respondent Nos.8 -14.

By consent of the parties, the appeal and the

application are taken up for hearing together.

This is the second round of litigation. The

present appellant had approached this Court earlier by

filing WPA No.6566 of 2022 assailing a requisition

notice for her removal as Pradhan of Baghasti Gram

Panchayet. The learned Single Judge dismissed the

writ petition. The appellant went up in appeal by filing

MAT No.685 of 2022. A Coordinate Bench by an order

dated May 5, 2022, allowed the appeal, albeit

reluctantly, on the technical ground that the

requisitionists had not mentioned their political

affiliation or independent status in the requisition

notice as is mandatorily required under Section 12(2)

of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. This made

the notice incurably bad and hence, the notice and all

actions taken pursuant to such notice were set aside

by the Division Bench. The result was that the

resolution for removal of the appellant as Pradhan that

had already been taken by a majority of members at

the meeting convened by the Prescribed Authority on

the basis of the defective requisition notice, was also

set aside. However, the Division Bench expressly

granted liberty to the requisitionists to submit fresh

requisitions for holding meeting for removal of the

Pradhan.

It appears that subsequently the requisite

number of members submitted a requisition notice

dated June 1, 2022, for holding a meeting for removal

of the Pradhan, who is the present appellant. Pursuant

to such notice, the Prescribed Authority issued a

notice fixing the meeting on June 21, 2022. These

notices were challenged by the appellant by filing the

present writ petition being WPA No.10659 of 2022.

The only point that the appellant argued before

the learned Single Judge was that the bar under

Section 12(11) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973

is attracted and hence, another meeting for removal of

the Pradhan could not be held before the expiry of one

year. The learned Single Judge by a detailed judgment

dismissed the writ petition holding that none of the

pre-requisites, which attract the bar under Section 12

(11) of the 1973 Act, is fulfilled in the present case and

the Prescribed Authority was well within its rights to

convene the meeting for removal of the Pradhan on

the basis of the requisition notice dated June 1, 2022.

We understand that the meeting was held on June 21,

2022, and the present appellant has been removed as

Pradhan.

Before us, Mr. Samanta, learned Counsel

appearing for the appellant has argued two points.

Firstly, he argued that Section 12(11) of the 1973 Act

does not enumerate exhaustive grounds for the bar

being attracted. Section 12(11) of the said Act reads as

follows:

"If the motion is not carried by the majority of its existing members or the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion for the removal of the same office bearer shall be taken into cognizance within a period of one year from the date appointed for such meeting".

Learned Counsel submitted that the Court has

power to see if other incidental grounds are present

which attract the bar under Section 12(11) of the 1973

Act. In this connection, learned Counsel relied on a

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Khargram Panchayat Samiti Vs State of West

Bengal & Others reported in (1987) 3 SCC 82. Mr.

Samanta relied on paragraph 4 of the judgment. With

great respect, we do not see how this judgment is

relevant. What the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in

paragraph 4 of the judgment is that the view taken by

the High Court in that case that although the

Panchayat Samity was vested with the power to grant

a licence for the holding of a haat or fair under Section

117 of the 1973 Act, it had no consequential or

incidental power to specify a day for holding of such

haat or fair, was erroneous. It is well accepted that

the conferral of statutory powers on the local

authorities must be construed as impliedly authorizing

everything which could fairly and reasonably be

regarded as incidental or consequential to the power

itself. We see absolutely no relevance of the said

judgment in the facts of the present case.

Learned Counsel also submitted that after the

resolution removing the Pradhan was set aside in the

earlier round of litigation by the Division Bench on

May 5, 2022, the appellant was permitted to resume

charge only on June 6, 2022. However, in the

meantime, in hot haste, the requisition notice dated

June 1, 2022 was issued by the requisitionists. This

shows mala fide. Learned Counsel relied on a decision

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Inderpreet Singh Kahlon Vs State of Punjab

reported in AIR 2006 SC 2571 wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed in the facts of that case that

the impugned decision of the authority was also

suspect on the ground of it being taken in undue

haste. With respect, this decision also does not help

the appellant to any extent. In the present case, no

decision was taken in undue haste. The requisitionists

were well within their rights to issue the requisition

notice on June 1, 2022. Indeed, express liberty had

been granted to them by the Division Bench in the

earlier round of litigation.

We do not see how Section 12(11) of the 1973

Act gets attracted in the aforesaid facts and

circumstances. In our considered opinion, the

question of the bar being attracted would arise only if

a meeting is actually held and the resolution is

defeated by a majority or the meeting has to be

adjourned for lack of quorum. In the present case,

none of these conditions are fulfilled. The appellant

had been removed by an earlier resolution by a

majority of members. Such resolution was set aside by

the Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation

only because the notice was found to be incurably

defective and not in accordance with the statutory

mandate. Liberty was granted to the requisitionists to

issue fresh requisition notice in accordance with law.

In our view, the fresh requisition notice dated June 1,

2022 was wholly in accordance with law and not in

contravention of any provision of law. The learned

Single Judge was absolutely right in holding that the

bar under Section 12(11) of the Act is in no manner

attracted in the present case.

There is absolutely no merit in this appeal and

we consider this to be a frivolous appeal. We were

minded to impose costs on the appellant but have

been dissuaded from doing so by the eloquence of

learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.

Since we have not called for affidavits, the

allegations in the stay application are deemed not to

be admitted by the respondents.

MAT No.909 of 2022 stands dismissed along

with IA CAN 1 of 2022.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied expeditiously after compliance

with all the necessary formalities.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)