Judgment Banerji, J.: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated February 2, 2001 passed in W. P. No. 18271 (W) of 2000 by a learned Single Judge of this Court where by the writ application was dismissed. 2. In the writ application, the appellants/petitioners challenged the legality and validity of the notice dated November 9, 2000 whereby some members of the Gram Panchayat of the village Bantul, Baidyanthpur in the District of Howrah requisitioned for a meeting to be held on November 17, 2000 for the removal of the Pradhan (the appellant/ petitioner No.2) of the Gram Panchayat. 3. A notice was served by the requisitionists addressed to the Pradhan for calling a meeting for removal of Pradhan in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Panchayat Act 1973 and no meeting was held for such removal. 4. Subsequent to the issue of the above notice dated October 16, 2000, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat by a notice dated October 20, 2000 convened a meeting to be held on October 30, 2000 at 2 p.m. at the office of the Gram Panchayat and the said notice was served on all the elected members of the Gram Panchayat. The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat by a notice dated October 20, 2000 also convened a General Meeting of the said Gram Panchayat to be held in the office of the Panchayat on October 30, 2000 at 3 pm. In spite of the service of the requisitionists notice for removal of the Pradhan all the elected members of the Gram Panchayat attended both the meetings held on October 30, 2000 pursuant to the notice dated October 20, 2000 and all the members of Gram Panchayat including the requisitionists supported and accepted the Budget and the reports submitted by the Pradhan in the meetings held on October 30, 2000 as mentioned above. 5. In pursuance of the requisitionists notice dated October 16, 2000, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat issued a notice to all the elected members fixing November 5, 2000 to transact the Agenda in the notice of the requisitionists. The meeting was held under the provisions of the Panchayat Act and the Upa-Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat presided in the said meeting. The meeting was held under the provisions of the Panchayat Act and the Upa-Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat presided in the said meeting. The said meeting on November 5, 2000 for removal of Pradhan was held in presence of the Observer nominated and sent by the Block Development Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority. From the report of the Observer, it appears that in the said meeting no member cast any vote in favour of the proposal for removal of the Pradhan. 6. The requisitionists, however issued another notice dated November 9,2000 fixing November 17, 2000 as the date of meeting with an Agenda for removal of Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat. 7. It is the validity of this notice which is under challenge in the present proceeding. Third proviso to Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 is as follows :- "If at a meeting convened under this section either no meeting is held or no resolution removing an office bearer is adopted, no other meeting shall be convened for removal of the same office bearer within six months from the date appointed for such meeting." 8. In view of the above provision we are of the opinion that no resolution having been adopted for removal of Pradhan in the meeting held on November 5, 2000, no further meeting could be held for the same purpose for removal of Pradhan before the expiry of six months from the date of November 5, 2000. 9. Therefore, the impugned notice dated November 9, 2000 for a meeting of the removal of Pradhan on November 17, 2000 which is hit by the third proviso to Section 12 of the Panchayat Act, 1973 is bad and invalid. 10. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the application for stay stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Chatterjee, J.: I agree.