Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1447 (CAL)

Gosto Mandol v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-12-14

BHATTACHARYYA, SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. INSTEAD of disposal of the application, we propose to hear out the appeal itself as this appeal can be disposed of on a pure question of law. 2. THIS appeal is at the instance of a writ petitioner and is directed against the order dated 4th October, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge disposed of a writ application by directing that the letter of resignation as well as the subsequent one of withdrawal of the resignation given by the writ petitioner should be considered at the meeting that will be convened by the general body of the concerned Panchayet Samity within three weeks from the date of receipt of such order. Being dissatisfied, the writ petitioner has come up with the present mandamus appeal. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner, who is a Sabhapati of the concerned Panchayet Samity, tendered his resignation on 19th October, 2009 by addressing the same to the Sahakari Sabhapati in accordance with the then provision of the West Bengal Panchayet Act. It further appears that a copy of such letter was also given to the Sub Divisional Officer and the Secretary of the Panchayet Samity. 3. PURSUANT to such letter of resignation, the Block Development Officer and the Executive Officer of the Panchayet Samity in the past had written several letters to the Sahakari Sabhapati to take appropriate step in accordance with the then provision contained in Section 99(3)(a) of the Act. But in spite of that, no step was taken for convening the next meeting of the concerned Panchayet Samity. 4. IN the meantime, the amendment of Section 99 of the West Bengal Panchayet Act, 1973 came into force with effect from 1st July, 2010, which provided a total different procedure of giving resignation as well as for acceptance of such resignation of a Panchayet Samity. The writ petitioner filed the aforesaid writ application contending that after the coming into operation of the amended provision of Section 99 of the Act, his resignation earlier made in the month of October, 2009 should be totally ignored as the same had become ineffective. 5. The writ petitioner filed the aforesaid writ application contending that after the coming into operation of the amended provision of Section 99 of the Act, his resignation earlier made in the month of October, 2009 should be totally ignored as the same had become ineffective. 5. AS indicated earlier, the learned Single Judge by the order impugned directed the Panchayet Samity to consider both the resignation letter and the subsequent letter of withdrawal of resignation given on 29th July, 2010 in the next meting of the panchayet. Being dissatisfied, the writ petitioner has come up with the present mandamus appeal. 6. MR. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended before us that after the coming into operation of the amended provision of Section 99 of the Act, his client's resignation letter has become infructuous as, according to the amended provision, the Sabhapati of a Panchayet Samity can resign his office by notifying in writing his intention to do so the reason by his resignation and also his present postal address for further communication to the prescribed authority, whereas under the old Act, it ought to have been addressed to the Sahakari Sabhapati. Mr. Bhattacharjee contends that pursuant to the resignation, no step having been taken before coming into operation of the amended provision, the same has become ineffective and as such, the learned Single Judge erred in law in passing direction upon the Panchayet Samity to consider the letter of resignation as well as the letter of withdrawal in accordance with the law, as it stood before amendment, which is patently erroneous. 7. AFTER hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that in the month of October, 2010 when the resignation letter was addressed to the Panchayet Samity in accordance with the then provision, the copy of the same was also given to the prescribed authority as well as the Sub Divisional Officer and those authorities requested the Sahakari Sabhapati to convene the next meeting for considering the said letter of resignation, but in spite of such request, no meeting was held. 8. THEREFORE, it is apparent that the letter of resignation was processed through the then procedure of law, but it did not reach the stage of consideration by the Panchayet Samity. 8. THEREFORE, it is apparent that the letter of resignation was processed through the then procedure of law, but it did not reach the stage of consideration by the Panchayet Samity. In our opinion, when the process of consideration of the resignation letter had already started, the same should be concluded in accordance with the then provision of law. The amended provision, as it appears from a plain reading of the same, indicates that the same has been given effect from 1st July, 2010 and there is no indication that the earlier resignation, which has not been finally considered, would become ineffective. 9. THEREFORE, in case before us, the resignation letter as well as the letter of withdrawal of such resignation should be considered by the Panchayet Samity in accordance with the earlier provision, which was effective prior to 1st July, 2010 and the learned Single Judge rightly passed such direction. 10. WE, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is consequently dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. In view of dismissal of the appeal itself, the connected application has become infructuous and the same is, thus, disposed of. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Counsel appearing for the parties within one week from the date of filing of the application.