Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 119 (CAL)

Aleya Sk. v. State of West Bengal

2003-03-13

PRADIPTA RAY

body2003
JUDGMENT The writ petitioner was elected Upo-Prodhan of Faridpur Gram Panchayat in the District of Nadia. 2. Eight members of the Faridpur Gram Panchayat sent a notice dated October 21, 2002 to the Prodhan requesting him to convene a meeting to consider their proposal to remove the Upo-Prodhan. On the basis of the said notice the Prodhan of the Gram Panchayat convened a meeting on October 31, 2002 with agenda for verifying testing the confidence in favour of Upo-Prodhan. In the meeting dated October 31, 2002 eight requisitionists supported a resolution for cancelling the meeting on the ground that the Prodhan intentionally used incorrect language in the agenda of the meeting. On the basis of the said resolution supported by eight members the meeting came to an end without transacting any business, The said eight requisitionists of the Gram Panchayat thereafter convened a requisition meeting on November 15, 2002 to discuss their proposal to remove the Upo-Prodhan. In the meeting held on November 15, 2002 resolution to remove the writ petitioner was adopted. In pursuance of the said resolution the prescribed authority and Block Development Officer, Kaliagang informed all concerned that the writ petitioner had been removed from the office of the Upo-Prodhan. The writ petitioner had challenged legality and propriety of the said requisition meeting, the resolution adopted therein and the consequential action of the prescribed authority under the West Bengal Panchayat Act. 3. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that no resolution having been adopted in the meeting convened by the Prodhan of the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of removing the Upo-Prodhan a second meeting for the same purpose was not permissible within six months from the date of the said first meeting. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that as the proposed resolution was for ‘testing confidence in the Upo-Prodhan’ the said meeting convened by the Prodhan was not a meeting for removal of the Upo-Prodhan as required under Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as such the requisition meeting cannot be treated as the second meeting. 4. The Prodhan or Upo-Prodhan of a Gram Panchayat remains in office so long as he enjoys the confidence of the majority of the members of the Panchayat or is not otherwise declared disqualified to continue as such. 4. The Prodhan or Upo-Prodhan of a Gram Panchayat remains in office so long as he enjoys the confidence of the majority of the members of the Panchayat or is not otherwise declared disqualified to continue as such. The meeting dated October 21, 2002 was convened because of the notice of the requisition given by eight members. Language used in the agenda was ‘for testing the confidence in Upo-Prodhan’. The effect of testing confidence is to ascertain whether the Prodhan or Upo-Prodhan, as the case may be, enjoy the confidence of the majority of the members of the Panchayat or not. Prodhan or Upo-Prodhan cannot continue in office if he/she does not enjoy confidence of the majority of the members. Lack of confidence of the majority is necessary for removing a Prodhan or Upo-Prodhan. The purpose of the impugned meeting was very clear and it was to ascertain whether the majority members had confidence or no confidence in the Upo-Prodhan. Consequence of lack of confidence of the majority members was removal of Upo-Prodhan as proposed by the Requisitionists. The difference in language should not matter unless the difference is such that it is likely to misload the members of the Panchayat in the matter of expressing their opinion or its effect or consequence is not the removal of Prodhan or Upo-Prodhan. Thus, it cannot be said no meeting for the purpose of removing the Upo-Prodhan within the meaning of Section 12 of Act was convened. A meeting was convened and held. The requisitionists themselves adopted a resolution to cancel the meeting. In spite of difference in language purpose was clear. In such situation second proviso to Section 12 of the Act came into play and no second meeting could be convened for removal of the Upo-Prodhan within six months from October 31, 2002. 5. Mrs. Sanghamitra Nandi, Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents was 8 to 15 has referred to a decision reported in 1997(11) CHN 180. (in Re : Mustakin Hossain v. The State of West Bengal to submit that a second meeting can be held within six months of the first meeting. Such submission is contrary to express provision of the statute. Mrs. Sanghamitra Nandi, Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents was 8 to 15 has referred to a decision reported in 1997(11) CHN 180. (in Re : Mustakin Hossain v. The State of West Bengal to submit that a second meeting can be held within six months of the first meeting. Such submission is contrary to express provision of the statute. In Mustakin Hossain (supra) it was held that the first meeting was not legally convened and as such there was no meeting in the eye of law to attract the embargo contained in Second Proviso to Section 12 of the Act. In the present case it has already been held that meeting was lawfully called by the Prodhan for ascertaining whether the majority members had confidence in the Upo-Prodhan or not. 6. It is also significant to mention here that the Prodhan who convened the meeting dated October 31, 2002 was instrumental in having the second meeting and getting a resolution removing the Upo-Prodhan adopted in the said second meeting. He is one of the applicants for vacating the interim order. As this Court is of the view that the meeting dated October 31, 2002 was really for expressing confidence or no confidence in the Upo-Prodhan in order to remove her the plea of the respondents that there was no meeting within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act cannot be accepted. The meeting dated November 15, 2002 having been convened and held within six months from the date of the first meeting, the said meeting and the resolution adopted therein are contrary to the provisions of the Act and cannot be given effect to. For the foregoing reasons writ application is allowed. The impugned meeting dated November 15, 2002, the resolution removing the Upo-Prodhan from her office adopted in the aforesaid impugned meeting and all consequential actions or orders in pursuance thereof are set aside.