Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 693 (CAL)

ASIFA KHATOON v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006-11-10

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2006
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. ( 1 ) SEVEN out of twenty members of Kanki Gram Panchayat, by their letter dated 18th September, 2006 requested the Pradhan of the concerned gram Panchayat to convene a meeting for transacting the business on the agenda of removal of Pradhan. Pursuant to the said request, the Pradhan by his notice dated 25th September, 2006 convened a meeting to be held for the said purpose on 3rd October, 2006. ( 2 ) BUT before the meeting was held, the said seven members by their subsequent letter dated 3rd October, 2006 withdrew their earlier letter by which the Pradhan was requested to convene the meeting, as aforesaid. ( 3 ) UNDER such circumstances, no meeting was held for the said purpose on 3rd October, 2006 in terms of the notice issued by the Pradhan. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, eleven members of the said Gram Panchayat by their letter dated 5"' October, 2006 requested the Pradhan of the -said Gram panchayat to convene a meeting for the very same purpose. The Pradhan, however, this time did not convene any meeting. Accordingly, the said eleven members by their notice dated 2th October, 2006 requisitioned a meeting to be held on 30th October, 2006 for transacting the business regarding removal of Pradhan. ( 5 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and/or validity of the notice dated 5th October, 2006 by which the said eleven members requested the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat to convene a meeting for transacting the business on the agenda of removal of Pradhan. ( 6 ) MR. Bari, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submits that in view of the provision as contained in the 3rd proviso to section 12 of the west Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 the subsequent notice which was given by the eleven members, requesting the Pradhan to convene the said meeting, is illegal, as the 3rd proviso to section 12 of the said Act prohibits holding of such meeting within six months from the date appointed for holding such meeting pursuant to the notice issued by the Pradhan on 25th September, 2006. ( 7 ) MR. ( 7 ) MR. Banerjee, learned Advocate, appearing for the private respondents informs this Court that the meeting which was requisitioned by the eleven members of the said Gram Panchayat, by their notice dated 20th October, 2006 was held on the said date and a resolution was adopted by eleven out of twenty members of the said Gram Panchayat for removal of the said Pradhan in the presence of the observer, deputed by the prescribed authority. ( 8 ) MR. Banerjee, further, submits that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 27th October, 2006 further steps could not be taken pursuant to the said resolution. As a result, the said Pradhan who has lost the confidence of the majority members is still acting as Pradhan of the said gram Panchayat. ( 9 ) MR. Banerjee, thus, submits that when the majority members of the gram Panchayat have lost their confidence in the Pradhan, the Pradhan should not be allowed to continue. ( 10 ) HEARD the learned Advocate of the parties. Considered the materials on record. ( 11 ) THE decision on the entire dispute which is involved in this writ petition hinges upon the interpretation of the provision contained in the 3rd proviso to section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, which is set out herein : "removal of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan.- Subject to the other provisions of this section, a Pradhan or an Upa-Pradhan of a Gram panchayat may, at any time, be removed from office by a resolution carried by the majority of the existing members referred to in clause (i)of sub-section (2a) of section 4, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. Notice of such meeting shall be given to the prescribed authority: provided that at any such meeting while any resolution for the removal of the Pradhan from his office is under consideration, the Pradhan, or while any resolution for the removal of the Upa-Pradhan from his office is under consideration, the Upa-Pradhan, shall not, though he is present, preside, and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 16 shall apply in relation to every such meeting as they apply in relation to a meeting from which the Pradhan or, as the case may be, the Upa-Pradhan is absent : provided further that no meeting lor the removal of the Pradhan or the upa-Pradhan under this section shall be convened within a period of one year from the date of election of the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan : provided also that if, at a meeting convened under this section either no meeting is held or no resolution removing an office bearer is adopted, on other meeting shall be convened for the removal of the same office bearer within six months from the date appointed for such meeting. " ( 12 ) ON plain reading of the said provision, particularly, the 3rd proviso thereto, it is crystal clear that if at a meeting convened under this section, either no meeting is held or no resolution removing the office bearer is adopted, no other meeting shall be convened for removal of the office bearer within six months form the date appointed such meeting. ( 13 ) HERE of course, a meeting was convened pursuant to the request made by seven members. Since section 16 of the said Act provides that such a request can be made by not less than one-third of the total members, this court does not find any illegality in such request, as such a request was made by more than one third of the total members of the said Gram panchayat. It is also true that the Pradhan also acted upon the said request and convened a meeting for the said purpose, but the said seven members withdrew their request letter before holding the said meeting. ( 14 ) THEN, what will be the effert of such withdrawal? ( 15 ) THE request letter is the foundation of the said meeting. It is also true that the Pradhan also acted upon the said request and convened a meeting for the said purpose, but the said seven members withdrew their request letter before holding the said meeting. ( 14 ) THEN, what will be the effert of such withdrawal? ( 15 ) THE request letter is the foundation of the said meeting. Once the request letter is withdrawn, in my view, all subsequent steps which were taken pursuant to such request automatically stood withdrawn. ( 16 ) UNDER such circumstances, this Court cannot hold that the third proviso to section 12 of the said Act is attracted here as the meeting which was convened by the Pradhan by his notice dated 25lh September, 2006, stood automatically withdrawn as a consequence of withdrawal of the request letter pursuant to which such meeting was convened by the Pradhan. ( 17 ) THE only conclusion which this Court can arrive at with regard to the notice dated 25. 9. 2006 issued by the Pradhan, is that the said notice becomes non est in the eye of law, meaning thereby that no meeting was in fact convened for the said purpose earlier. ( 18 ) IF that be so, then, in my view the restrictions for convening the meeting for the subsequent period within six months from the date appointed for holding meeting pursuant to the notice issued by the Pradhan on 25th September, 2006, is not attracted in the instant case. ( 19 ) THUS, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Bari, in this regard. ( 20 ) MR. Bari, further submits that since a proceeding for removal of some of the members under section. 11 (l) (d) of the said Act is pending before the competent authority, the resolution which was adopted in the said meeting with the participation of those members cannot be held to be legal. ( 21 ) THIS Court also does not find any merit in such submission of Mr. Bari, as the order of removal of any member on any of the grounds as mentioned in section 11 of the said Act, takes effect only when the prescribed authority passes an order of removal. There is no provision in the Act, which prohibits any such member from participating in any meeting during the pendency of such a proceeding against him. There is no provision in the Act, which prohibits any such member from participating in any meeting during the pendency of such a proceeding against him. ( 22 ) IN such view of the matter, neiher the participation of such members in the said meeting for removal Pradhan, nor the resolution adopted in the said meeting with the participation of such members can be held as illegal. ( 23 ) UNDER such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this application. ( 24 ) THE writ petition, thus, stands rejected. ( 25 ) THE interim order which was passed earlier stands vacated. Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : writ petition rejected.