ORDER This Civil Order involves a short but interesting point of law as to whether a government nominee appointed to a Panchayat as its member under s. 210 of the Panchayat Act, 1973, enjoys his tenure of office even if he violates the provisions of s. 11(1)(d) of the said Act or in other words whether s. 210 has an overriding effect over the provisions of s. 11 of the Act.” 2. The petitioner no. 1 Panchayat (Ganga Prosad Gram Panchayat) was constituted in the month or February, 1983 of which the petitioner no. 2 is the Pradhan. In the said Panchayat. respondent no.7 was appointed to be a member of the said Panchayat as the government nominees, purportedly under s. 210 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The petitioners allege that as the respondent no. 7 did not attend three consecutive meetings of the petitioner no. 1 Panchayat, held on 14th April, 1989, 21st May, 1989 and 4th June, 1989 without any intimation, the said respondent was asked to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him in terms of the provisions of s. 11(1)(d) of the Act, and thereafter, as the said respondent no. 7 did not show any cause in the matter, the petitioner no.2 by his letter dated 20th June, 1989 requested the respondent no. 5, who is the prescribed authority, to take steps against the respondent no. 7 in terms of the provisions of s. 11(l)(d) of the said Act as he did not attend four consecutive meetings of the petitioner no. 1 Panchayat, held on 14th April, 1989, 21st May, 1989, 4th June, 1989 and 26th August, 1989 without any prior intimation and/or leave of the Panchayat. The main allegations of the petitioners in the present writ application, inter alia, are that in spite of such request being made to the respondent no, 5 as stated above, the said respondent is not taking any steps against the respondent no. 7 in terms of s. 11(1)(b) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. 3. Mr. The main allegations of the petitioners in the present writ application, inter alia, are that in spite of such request being made to the respondent no, 5 as stated above, the said respondent is not taking any steps against the respondent no. 7 in terms of s. 11(1)(b) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. 3. Mr. Manna, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that under s. 7(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, the members of a Gram Panchayat shall, subject to the provisions of sub-s. (2) of the said s. 7 and s. 11, hold offices for a period of 5 years from the date of poll in the general election for constitution of the Gram Panchayat and further submits that s. 11(1)(d) of the said Act provides inter alia, that if a member of a Gram Panchayat is absent from three consecutive meetings of such Panchayat without the leave of the Gram Panchayat, the prescribed authority may, after giving an opportunity to such member to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, remove him from office. Mr. Manna also submits that although under s. 210(1) of the said Act, the Government appoints the government nominees to a Gram Panchayat and sub-s. (2) of the said s. 210 states, inter alia, that the member appointed under sub-s. (1) shall hold office for so long as the term of the Gram Panchayat for which he is appointed, continues, a harmonious construction regarding the rights and obligations and/or liabilities of such government nominees, taking s. 7 and s. 210 of the said Act together and giving a harmonious construction to the provisions of ss. 7 and 210 of the Act, it would become clear that such government nominees enjoy their office as the members of a Gram Prmchayat for which they are appointed, subject to the restrictions and/or limitations as prescribed in s. 11 of the Act, and thus according to Mr. 7 and 210 of the Act, it would become clear that such government nominees enjoy their office as the members of a Gram Prmchayat for which they are appointed, subject to the restrictions and/or limitations as prescribed in s. 11 of the Act, and thus according to Mr. Manna, since such government nominees should be treated as a full member of the Gram Panchayat for which they are appointed, which would mean that such selected member will enjoy all the rights and privileges of a full-fledged elected member of a Gram Panchayat as given in the Act, he will also be subject to the restrictions and/or obligations attached to such an elected member, as provided under s. 11(1) of the said Act and refers to the Division bench decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of lzazul Haque & others vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (85 CWN 202:) (1980) 2 CLJ 527 ) and also to the Government Order No. 3301(15)I/Panch/IA–8–80 dated 12th February,1981 wherein a guideline was given regarding removal of members appointed under s. 210 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 to the effect that although a resolution of a Gram Panchayat, recommending removal of a member already appointed under s. 210 of the Act, is not binding on the State Government, as normally any member appointed under the said s. 210 should be allowed to continue in office for the full term, if, however, the government is satisfied that the member concerned has become disqualified as provided in the law in the meantime, which renders him unsuitable for the" post, such member may be removed from his office by the government. 4. Mr. Subodh Ukil, learned Government Pleader, appearing with Mr. 4. Mr. Subodh Ukil, learned Government Pleader, appearing with Mr. C.R. Chakraborty, learned Advocate on behalf of the State respondents, however, submits that in view of the specific provisions of s. 210(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, the member appointed by the State Government, under s. 210 of the Act to a Gram Panchayat as the government nominee, shall hold office so long as the term of office of the Gram Panchayat continues, and the said s. 210(2) has an overriding effect so far as the s. 7(1) and s. 11 of the said Act are concerned and because of such overriding effect, such government nominee cannot be removed from his membership under any of the provisions of s. 11 including clause (d) of sub-s. (1) of the said s. 11. Mr. Chakraborty also places reliance upon the Government Circular/Order No. 3301(5)I/Panch/I–A-8/80 dated 12th February, 1981 and submits that as per the said Circular and/or Order, the resolution of a Gram Panchayat recommending removal of the member appointed under s. 210 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, is not binding on the State Government. Mr. Ram, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7, who is a government nominee to the petitioner no. 1 Panchayat, also adopts the arguments of Mr. Ukil and places reliance on the said government Circular/Order dated 12th February, 1981. 4A. Section 4 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 provides for the constitution of a Gram Panchayat and s. 4(5) provides that every Gram Panchayat shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall, by its corporate name, sue and be sued. 5. Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, which is reproduced below speaks of the term of offices of the members of a Gram panchayat : “The members of a Gram Panchayat shall, subject to the provisions of sub-s. (2) of this Section and Section 11, hold office for a period of five years from the date of poll in the general election for constitution of Gram Panchayals.” 6. Section 11 of the said Act speaks of the removal of a member of a Gram Panchayat and clause (d) of s. 11(1) provides that if a member of a Gram Panchayat is absent from three consecutive meetings of the Gram Panchayat without the leave of the said Panchayat, he may be removed from his office. 7. Section 210(1) of the Act speaks of the appointment of members by the State Government to a Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samity and Zilla Parishad and s. 210(2) states inter alia, that the members appointed under sub-s. (1) shall hold office for so long as the term of office of the Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samity or the Zilla Parishad, as the case may be, for which they are appointed, continues. 8. So far as the status of a person appointed by the State Government to a Gram Panchayat as its member, under s. 210 (1) of the Act is concerned, reference may be made to the Division Bench decision of this Hon’ble Court in Izawl Haque’s case (supra), wherein it had been held, inter alia, by the Division Bench discussing over the status of a person or persons appointed as a member or members of a Gram Panchayat under s. 210 of the Act as follows :– “It is made clear that the said section empowers the State Government to appoint persons in terms of the said section and the persons so appointed become members of the Gram Panchayat. Our attention has already been drawn to s. 7 of the West Bengal Panchaya, (Amendment) Act, 1978 (West Bengal Act X of 1978) by which s. 210 of the West Bengal Punchayat Act, 1973 has been amended, and on a plain reading of the section we are clearly of the opinion that the persons appointed under s. 210 of the Act by the State Government become members of the Gram Panchayat and are entitled to all the rights and privileges which the members of a Gram Panchayat enjoy. There is nothing in the Act, as far as it has been suggested, either expressly or by any implication, that the persons so appointed by the State Government will not be entitled to enjoy the rights and privileges which are enjoyed by the other elected members of the Gram Panchayat. There is nothing in the Act, as far as it has been suggested, either expressly or by any implication, that the persons so appointed by the State Government will not be entitled to enjoy the rights and privileges which are enjoyed by the other elected members of the Gram Panchayat. If the persons so appointed by the State Government under s. 210 were not to be allowed to participate in the meeting and to vote, if any voting become necessary, the appointment of such persons by the State Government would really become meaningless. In that view of the matter, we are of opinion that B.C. Ray, J., has rightly come to the conclusion that the persons so appointed by the State Government. under s. 210 of the Act are members of the Gram Panchayat and are entitled to participate In the meeting and In any voting, if any voting takes place. We have earlier observed that the only question that was urged in this appeal was the question relating to the rights of the member appointed by the State Government under s. 210 and no other questions as urged in this appeal. We do not, therefore, consider it necessary to decide any other question.” 9. From the above decision, it is quite clear that a person appointed by the State Government as member of a Gram Panchayat, under s. 210(1) of the Act are to be treated as a full member of such Panchayat enjoying all the rights and privileges as are being' enjoyed by the elected members of such Gram Panchayat. 10. Now the question is, if members appointed under s. 210(1) of the Act are to enjoy all the rights and privileges as are being enjoyed by the elected members of a Gram Panchayat, whether such elected members should also sholuder the burden of liabilities, obligations and/or restrictions which the elected members of such a Gram Panchayat arc subjected to, as per provisions of the Act. No doubt, under s.210(2) of the Act, it is stated inter alia, that the persons appointed by the State Government under s.210(1) of the Act as members of a Gram Panchayat, shall hold their offices so long as the term of the office of the Gram Panchayat, for which they are appointed, continues, but that does not necessarily mean that such elected members shall continue to hold their offices even if they offend or violate the provisions of any of the clauses as stated in s. 11(1) of the Act, or that they enjoy the immunity of the rigours of the said s. 11(1), inasmuch as, as per s. 7(1) of the Act, the member of a Gram Panchayat shall hold their offices subject to the provisions of sub-s (2) of ss. 7 and 11 of the Act. Moreover, when s. 7(1) does not give any restricted meaning to the word ‘members’ as used therein, it would mean all members both elected and, appointed to the Gram Panchayat. Furthermore, when as per the decision in Izazul Haque’s case (supra), the persons appointed by the State Government under s. 210(1) of the Act are to be treated as members of the Gram Panchayat, for which they are so appointed, and are also entitled to enjoy all the rights and privileges as the elected members of the Gram Panchayat enjoy, the natural corollary would be, that such ejected members are also to shoulder the burden of the same liabilities, obligations and/or restrictions which the elected members of the Gram Panchayat arc subjected to under the Act, or in other words, such elected members do not enjoy any special position or any immunity of the rigours as provided under the Act. 11. No doubt, the Government Order and/or Circular no. 3301(15) I/Panch/IA-8-80 dated 12th February, 1981 as referred to by Mr. 11. No doubt, the Government Order and/or Circular no. 3301(15) I/Panch/IA-8-80 dated 12th February, 1981 as referred to by Mr. Ukil, has no legal or binding effect, inasmach as, the said circular merely speaks of the opinion of the Law Officer of the State Government that a resolution of the Gram Panchayat recommending the removal of the members appointed by the State Government under s. 201(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 as members of the Gram Panchayat, in which they are so appointed, is not binding on the State Government, but even a closer scrutiny of the said circular also would reveal, that observations have been made therein to the affect normally, any member appointed under s. 210 of the Act should be allowed to continue in office for a full term unless the Government is dissatisfied that the member concerned has acquired disqualification as provided in the law in the meantime which renders him unsuitable for the post with reference to the general interest of the body to which he is so appointed and such observations, clearly indicate the Governments mind, that a person appointed by the State Government as a member of a Gram Panchayat under s. 210(1) of the Act is also liable to be removed for violating any of the provisions of s. 11(1) of the Act which makes him disqualified to continue as a member of such Panchayat. 12. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the provisions of the West Bengal panchayat Act, 1973, I hold that all members of a Gram Panchayat including a member appointed by the State Government under s. 210 (1) as a member of such panchayat hold their offices subject to the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 7 and s. 11 of the Act, or in other words, the provisions of sub s. (1) of s. 7 of the Act apply with full force even in the case of a member of Gram panchayat appointed by the State Government under s. 210 (1) of the Act, and s. 210(2) of the said Act does not have any overriding effect so far as the provisions of s. 7 or s. 11 of the Act are concerned. Therefore, if any member of a Gram Panchayat, appointed by the State Government under s. 210 (1) of the Act as a member of such Panchayat offends and/or violates any of the clauses of s. 11 (l) of tile Act, such a member incurs the liability of being removed from his membership for such violation s. 11 of the Act applies in case of an elected member of a Gram Panchayat also. 13. The Civil Order is, accordingly, made absolute and a writ of mandamus. should be issued commanding the State respondents concerned, to consider the resolution passed by the members of the petitioner No. 1 panchayat for removal of the membership of the respondent No.7 for his alleged violation of clause (d) of s. 11 (1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and also to consider the recommendation of the panchayat sent to the prescribed authority in the matter, in accordance with law after hearing the respondent No.7 and the petitioner No.1 Panchayat and by passing a reasoned order positively within four weeks from the date of communication of this order to the prescribed authority. Till such decision, the respondent No.7 is restrained from attending any meeting of and/or from taking part in any deliberations concerning the petitioner No. 1 Panchayat. There will be no order as to costs. The prayer for stay of operation of the order as made by the learned Advocate for the respondent No.7 is refused. Order made absolute; direction given to the State Government to consider the recommendation of the Panchayat for passing a reasoned order within the time mentioned in the order.