JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioners obtained this Rule requiring the respondents to show cause why a Writ in the nature of mandaus why should not go directing them to forbear from giving affect to the impugned resolution of removal of the prodhan dated 6 October, 1964, 2. THE petitioners are three in number. The petitioner No. 3 was the prodhan of Ausgram Anchal Panchayat. Seven members of the Panchayat gave a notice on 23 September, 1964 to the effect that the requisitioned meeting would be convened on 6 October, 1964 at 4 P. M. at Ban Nabagram junior School under section 23 read with section 22 (1) of the West bengal Panchayat Act and the members of the Panchayat were requested to be present. The agenda for discussion as given in the said notice was adoption of resolution of no confidence against the present Prodhan of Ausgram anchal Panchayat on the ground that between 20 April, 1964, and 8 July, 1964 the Prodhan did not summon the majority of the members and did not behave in a civil or gentlemanlike manner. The translation that I have made is of the notice In Bengali which is an annexure to the petition, and is marked with the letter "a", 3. A meeting was held on 6 October, 1964 where Kumarish Chandra bandopadhyaya proposed and Gokul chandra Konar seconded that Sk. Khuda Bux would preside at the meeting. Thereafter Saktipada bandopadhyaya proposed that the present prodhan between 20 April, 1964, and 18 July, 1964 did not summon the majority of the members at the meeting and did not behave in a civil or gentlemanlike manner with the members and therefore having lost confidence In the prodhan it was proposed that the Prodhan be removed, The proposal was seconded by Anuja Kumar Chattopadhyaya. The resolution was carded by majority of 13 votes. 4. COUNSEL for the petitioners put in the forefront the contention that there was no notice in the agenda dated 23 September, 1964 for removal of the president and yet there was a resolution to that effect and such a resolution offended the statutory provisions of the west Bengal Panchayat Act. The contention was that it was not a legal and valid meeting. Meetings under the statute have to be convened and conducted in accordance with the statutory rights and obligations. The contention was that it was not a legal and valid meeting. Meetings under the statute have to be convened and conducted in accordance with the statutory rights and obligations. It is the right of a member to complain of an infraction of statutory rights and obligations. A member of Anchal Panchayat whose status and rights as a member are sought to be affected by a resolution, has a right at law to impeach violation of statutory rights and obligations. The resolution offends the statutory provisions. 5. IT is manifest that there was no notice for removal. Counsel for the state contended that the effect of the resolution was that because people had lost confidence, therefore, it was proposed to remove the President. Removal and loss of confidence are two different concepts. It would be dangerous to equate loss of confidence or lack of confidence with removal. 6. IT was contended on behalf of the State that resolutions gave reference to sections of the Act and therefore it should be spelt oat by referring to the act that removed was aimed at. I am unable to accept that contention. Removal is a serious charge. It has to be specifically mentioned. A notice which dues not mention removal is a misleading notice. A resolution of removal where the notice did not mention removal is bad in law. I am of opinion that the contentions of the petitioners are correct. This meeting is without any legal sanction and validity. It is legally ineffective. Counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision in (1) Young v. Ladies' imperial Club Limited. reported in (1920) 2 K. B. 523, where the notice convening the meeting stated that the object of the meeting was to report on and discuss the matter concerning the plaintiff and Mrs. L and it was sent to each member of the committee except one who had previously intimated to the chairman that she would be unable to attend meetings of the committee. In an action for a declaration that the plaintiff was still a member of the club it was held that omission to summon the absent member of the committee invalidated the proceedings of that body and that the notice did not state the object of the meeting with sufficient paritcularity. In an action for a declaration that the plaintiff was still a member of the club it was held that omission to summon the absent member of the committee invalidated the proceedings of that body and that the notice did not state the object of the meeting with sufficient paritcularity. At pages 529 and 530 of the report Lord Sterndale, M. R. said that if the meeting was bad it would be invalid meeting in breach of the rules of the club. It was a proprietary club, in the present case the members are bound to observe the rules and regulations in the statute, 7. FAILURE to observe statutory mandate renders the proceedings bad. I am, therefore, of opinion that the petitioners should succeed. 8. ONE other point was canvased by Counsel for the petitioners that no information was given to the petitioner about the meeting in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act, In the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by jagannath Sanyal on 25th March, 1965, the deponent said in answer to the allegations made in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the petition that no intimation was given, that what was done by majority of the members was done according to the provisions of section 22 (1) read with section 28 of the West bengal Panchayat. Act. No evidence was adduced in support of that statement. At the hearing of the application Counsel for the State submitted that papers had been produced and it would appear very clearly from the papers that information was sent. This only shows the lack of care with which affidavits are prepared. All that I can say is that the deponent has not been of any assistance in making the affidavits in answer to Rule for mandamus. It is incumbent on the authorities to come forward with all the available materials and evidence. This Rule is made absolute. Lot a mandamus go requiring the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the resolution of removal of the prodhan dated 6 October, 1964. 9. FOR the reasons aforesaid the petitioners are entitled to succeed and the petitioners are entitled to costs. The result is that the removal of the president is bad and everything that has followed in the wake of that removal is bad. 9. FOR the reasons aforesaid the petitioners are entitled to succeed and the petitioners are entitled to costs. The result is that the removal of the president is bad and everything that has followed in the wake of that removal is bad. Let a mandamus also go requiring the respondents not to give effect to the removal of the prodhan and also to forbear from giving effect to the election of any new prodhan subsequent 10 the said removal. The respondents do pay costs to the petitioners being assessed at two gold mohurs.