Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 371 (CAL)

Abdur Rashid Seikh v. State of West Bengal

2000-07-27

PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA

body2000
JUDGMENT This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 13th July, 2000 issued by the ten members of Dadpur Gram Panchayat which is comprised of eighteen members in total, fixing the date of a requisition meeting on 27th July, 2000 for the purpose of removal of the Prodhan of the said Gram Panchayat, the petitioner herein. 2. Evidently, one-third members of the said Gram Panchayat required the Prodhan, the writ petitioner, to call a meeting of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat for the purpose of removal of the Prodhan. The said requisition was made by a letter dated 23rd of June, 2000. The writ petitioner, Prodhan himself admitted that he received the same on 27th of June, 2000. In these state of things the writ petitioner, Prodhan called the requisition meeting by a notice dated 19th July, 2000 by fixing the said meeting on 7th of August, 2000 whereas the requisitionists themselves fixed such requisition meeting on 27th of July, 2000 by issuing notice dated 13th July, 2000 which has been impugned in this writ petition. In the face of the aforesaid two notices, it was contended on behalf of the Prodhan, the writ petitioner, that the said requisitionists did not have power to call such meeting by the impugned notice dated 13th July, 2000 by fixing the date of meeting on 27th July, 2000, when such meeting had already been fixed by the Prodhan himself on 7th of August, 2000, by issuing a prior notice dated 10th of July, 2000. 3. Mr. Kalimuddin Mondal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, upon reference to the provisions of second proviso to Section 16 (1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 contended that the notice fixing the date and hour of the meeting on 7th August, 2000 having been issued by the Prodhan within fifteen days from the date of receipt of requisition by him, the requisitionists themselves had no occasion to invoke the said provision to call such requisition meeting by fixing a date earlier to the date that was fixed by the Prodhan himself. In other words the power to call such meeting under the second part of second proviso to Section 16 (I) would vest to the requisitionists only in the event of failure of the Prodhan to call such meeting under the first part of the second proviso to Section 16(1). 4. In other words the power to call such meeting under the second part of second proviso to Section 16 (I) would vest to the requisitionists only in the event of failure of the Prodhan to call such meeting under the first part of the second proviso to Section 16(1). 4. I am unable to accept the contention put forward on behalf of the writ petitioner. Upon bare perusal of the second proviso to Section 16 (1) of the said Act, it is clear that when the Prodhan is required in writing by the members of the Gram Panchayat to call a meeting, he is no doubt under statutory obligation to call such meeting within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such requisition. Said provision does nowhere give an impression that such obligation would be fully discharged if such meeting is merely called within fifteen days and the Prodhan by such calling may fix the date and hour of such meeting at any time as he may desire and there is no obligation whatsoever to fix the date of such meeting within any time period. On the contrary, the very purport of the aforesaid provisions is to the effect that a Prodhan of a Gram Panchayat would be required to issue a notice by calling a requisition meeting within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of such requisition and by such notice the date of such meeting should be fixed not later than thirty five days. This is more so, particularly in view of the second part of the second proviso to Section 16 (1) of the said Act. Because in the event of failure of a Prodhan to call such a meeting the requisitionists would be entitled to call such a meeting within a period of thirty five days. Therefore, if thirty five days be the outer limit for fixing the date of such a requisition meeting, then it cannot be said that a Prodhan of a Gram Panchayat would have an unlimited period without any restriction whatsoever for fixing a date of meeting whereby the move intimated by the requisitionists may in effect be frustrated whereas the requisitionists themselves would be entitled to fix such a meeting within a period of thirty five days. Therefore, the requisitionists were not obliged to abide by the notice dated 10th July, 2000 issued for calling a requisition meeting on 7th August, 2000. The challenge of the writ petitioner against the impugned notice dated 13th July, 2000 upon contention that the notice fixing the date of requisition meeting on 7th August, 2000 was issued by the Prodhan himself on 10th of July, 2000 cannot therefore be sustained as the said date of 7th of August, 2000 was fixed after expiry of the period of thirty five days from the date of receipt of the notice of requisition by the writ petitioner himself on 27th of June, 2000. So, the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, the same shall be given by Monday next (31.7.2000).