Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 649 (CAL)

Janani Hansda v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2005-09-29

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2005
Judgment :- (1.) The legality and/or validity of the notice by which the meeting was requisitioned by the requisitionist members of Ranibandh Gram Panchayat for transacting the business on the agenda for removal of the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan vide Annexure P-13 to this writ petition at page 40, is under challenge in this writ petition, at the instance of one of the members of the said Gram Panchayat. (2.) Mr. Malay Kumar Basu, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submitted before this Court that requisitioning of the meeting by the requisitionist members for transacting the business for removal of the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan vide Annexure P-13 to this writ petition is illegal, as the said notice was issued in violation of the provision as contained in the third proviso to section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. (3.) By referring to Annexure P-1 to this writ petition, Mr. Basu pointed but that earlier, the requisitionist members of the said Gram Panchayat by their letter dated 4th April, 2005 requested the Pradhan for taking steps for calling a meeting for transacting the business of no confidence against the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan. Since the Pradhan did not convene any meeting pursuant to such request, the requisitionist members themselves requisitioned a meeting for the said purpose appointing the date on 2nd May, 2005. (4.) Mr. Basu further pointed out that in fact a meeting was held on the said date and a resolution was adopted by the majority members of the said Gram Panchayat for removal of the Pradhan and the Upa-Pradhan on the ground that the majority members of the said Gram Panchayat lost their confidence in the said Pradhan. (5.) Mr. Basu further submitted that it is however true that the resolution which was adopted by the majority members of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as null and void by the prescribed authority by an order dated 19th May, 2005 due to various procedural lapses. (6.) Mr. (5.) Mr. Basu further submitted that it is however true that the resolution which was adopted by the majority members of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as null and void by the prescribed authority by an order dated 19th May, 2005 due to various procedural lapses. (6.) Mr. Basu thus contended that since a meeting was requisitioned by the requisitionist members for the purpose of transacting the business on the agenda of no-confidence against the Pradhan and the Upa-Pradhan on 2nd May, 2005 and further since a meeting was ultimately held on the said date, the requisition of the meeting vide the impugned notice for the same purpose for the second time within six months from the date appointed for holding the earlier meeting for the very same purpose is illegal, as requisitioning of such subsequent meeting within six months from the date of holding the earlier meeting is prohibited under the third proviso to section 12 of the said Act. (7.) Under these circumstances, Mr. Basu submitted that the impugned notice should be set aside. (8.) Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 to 11, submitted that the restriction imposed under the third proviso to section 12 of the said Act has no application in the facts of the instant case. Mr. Bandopadhyay pointed out that by the notice dated 4th April, 2005 vide Annexure P-1 to this writ petition, seven members out of 13 requested the Pradhan to convene a meeting for transacting the business on the agenda of no confidence against the Pradhan and the Upa-Pradhan. (9.) It was further pointed out by Mr. Bandopadhyay that since the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat did not convene any meeting pursuant to such request, the requisitionist members called a meeting for the said purpose appointing the date on 2nd May, 2005. The agenda of the said meeting which was specifically mentioned in the said notice was for transacting the business on no confidence against the Pradhan and the Upa-Pradhan. Thus, there was no agenda for removal of the Pradhan and the Upa-Pradhan in the said meeting. (10.) According to Mr. The agenda of the said meeting which was specifically mentioned in the said notice was for transacting the business on no confidence against the Pradhan and the Upa-Pradhan. Thus, there was no agenda for removal of the Pradhan and the Upa-Pradhan in the said meeting. (10.) According to Mr. Bandopadhyay, the restriction for calling the meeting for the second time within six months from the date, appointed for holding the earlier meeting for transacting the agenda of removal of the Pradhan and/or Upa-Pradhan as provided under the third proviso to section 12 of the said Act, will apply only when, the earlier meeting was called for transacting the business on the agenda of removal of Pradhan and/or the Upa-Pradhan. Since in the instant case, the earlier meeting was admittedly not-convened for transacting the business of removal of the Pradhan and/or the Upa-Pradhan, the restriction of calling the subsequent meeting within six months from the date of holding the earlier meeting has no application in the facts of the instant case. (11.) Mr. Bandopadhyay further submitted that admittedly in the instant case the entire proceeding was set aside by the prescribed authority due to procedural lapses. As such, no meeting in fact was held on the agenda of removal of the Pradhan and the Upa-Pradhan. (12.) Mr. Bandopadhyay further pointed out that the said requisitionist members by their letter dated 30th May, 2005 read with their letter dated 31st May, 2005 again requested the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat for calling a meeting for transacting the business on the agenda, of no-confidence of the Pradhan. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the prescribed authority. The said letter, however, could not ultimately be acted upon because of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Bankura on 4th July, 2005 vide Annexure P-11 to this writ petition wherein it was mentioned that since there is no provision for bringing no confidence motion against the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat under the said Act, such a meeting cannot be held. It was, however, mentioned therein that a proposal for removal of the Pradhan from his office may be initiated under section 12 of the said Act. (13.) Mr. It was, however, mentioned therein that a proposal for removal of the Pradhan from his office may be initiated under section 12 of the said Act. (13.) Mr. Bandopadhyay pointed out that pursuant to the said order, the said seven members of the Gram Panchayat, by their letter dated 1st August, 2005 requested the Pradhan to convene a meeting for the purpose of transacting the business on the agenda of removal of the Pradhan. Mr. Bandopadhyay further pointed out that since the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat failed to convene the meeting for the said purpose within the statutory period, the requisitionist members of the said Panchayat convened the meeting for the said purpose vide the impugned notice. (14.) Thus, according to Mr. Bandopadhyay, the notice dated 1st August, 2005 was the first notice by which the Pradhan was requested for the first time to convene a meeting for transacting the business for the purpose of removal of the Pradhan and since the Pradhan failed to comply with the said request, the meeting was convened by the said members for the first time for the purpose of removal of the Pradhan. As such, the provision contained in the third proviso to section 12 of the said Act has no manner of application in the instant case, as no meeting was convened earlier by the members of the said Gram Panchayat for transacting the business for removal of Pradhan. (15.) Mr. Bandopadhyay thus prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. (16.) Heard the learned Advocates of the parties. Considered the materials- on-record. (17.) Here in the instant case, the admitted position is that no meeting was earlier convened by the members of the said Gram Panchayat for removal of the Pradhan. If that be the admitted position, then I fully agree with the submission of Mr. Bandopadhyay that the provision contained in third proviso to section 12 of the said Act has no manner of application in the facts of the instant case. (18.) The third proviso to section 12 of the said Act provides that if at a meeting convened under this section either no meeting is held or no resolution of 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 purpose. (18.) The third proviso to section 12 of the said Act provides that if at a meeting convened under this section either no meeting is held or no resolution of 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 purpose. (19.) Plain reading of the said provision makes it clear that the restriction in calling the meeting for the second time within six months from the date appointed for holding the earlier meeting will attract only when a meeting was convened earlier for removal of the Pradhan under section 12 of the said Act within a period of preceding six months. (20.) Since admittedly no such meeting was convened earlier, the third proviso to section 12 will not come into operation in the facts of the instant case. (21.) That apart, the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat has not come forward to challenge the impugned notice. In my view, the petitioner who is not the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat cannot be a party aggrieved for challenging the action of the members of the said Gram Panchayat by which the Pradhan is sought to be removed by the members of such Gram Panchayat. (22.) Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition thus stands rejected. (23.) In view of the fact that the meeting could not be held on 30th August, 2005 as per. schedule as mentioned in the impugned notice being Annexure P-13 to this writ petition, the requisitionist members are permitted to hold a meeting for the said purpose within two weeks from date upon notice to the remaining members of the said Gram Panchayat with a copy forwarded to the Block Development Officer (prescribed authority). It is made clear that in the event such a meeting is held, the prescribed authority shall appoint an Observer for such meeting on the date to be fixed by the said requisitionist members for the said purpose. (24.) Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as" possible. Writ petition rejected.