Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tuhin Kumar Mondal & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 March, 2023
01.03.2023
Sl. No.16(DL)
srm
W.P.A. No. 3083 of 2023
Tuhin Kumar Mondal & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas,
Ms. Jyoti Agarwal
...for the Petitioners.
Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata,
Mr. Supratim Dhar
....for the State-respondents.
Affidavit of service is taken on record. Despite service,
none appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.10 to 17.
The writ petition has been filed by the requisitionists,
who brought a motion of no confidence on January 5, 2023 for
removal of the Pradhan of Chanderghat 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 for necessary directions.
According to the learned Advocate for the State-
respondents, the meeting for removal of the Pradhan cannot
be held as the period prescribed under the statute had expired.
The Court does not find any reason as to why the
prescribed authority did not call the meeting. Section 12(3) and
Section 12(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 has not
been complied with by the prescribed authority and the time
line prescribed by the statute has expired. The writ court
cannot extend the time.
It is the democratic right of the requisitionists, to seek
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 the provision of 'no-
confidence motion' had been incorporated 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 January 5, 2023 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 the 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 Pradhan in addition to sending the same by registered post
to the residence and office 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.)
