Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 151 (CAL)

Md. Ali Reza v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2012-02-23

BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioners are elected members of Rudranagar Gram Panchayat situated in the district of Birbhum. On 7th December, 2011, the petitioners served a notice as per provision of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to-date), for holding a meeting for removal of the present Pradhan of their Gram Panchayat. THE Prescribed Authority, being the Block Development Officer, Murarai-II Development Block, by a memo dated 8th December, 2011, intimated the writ petitioners that no meeting for removal of the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat could be held upto 22nd March, 2012, since a meeting convened in respect of a non-confidence motion for removal of present Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was earlier held on 22nd March, 2011, and by virtue of sub-section (11) of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up- to-date), no notice of any subsequent motion for removal of the same office bearer can be taken into cognizance within a period of one year from the date appointed for such meeting. 2. IT is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 22nd March, 2011, there was, in fact, no meeting since no elected members of the Gram Panchayat were present on that day at the appointed hour and place. In this regard, he has relied on the extract of the meeting dated 22nd March, 2011, which the writ petitioners obtained, upon invocation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 3. ON the other hand, learned senior counsel representing the respondent No.6, being the Pradhan of Rudranagar Gram Panchayat, refers to the same extract and submits that a meeting was called on 22nd March, 2011, but the same could not be held for want of quorum. As such, he submits that sub-section (11) of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to- date), is squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case and there is no infirmity of reasoning in the impugned memo dated 8th December, 2011, issued by the Prescribed Authority. . 4. As such, he submits that sub-section (11) of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to- date), is squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case and there is no infirmity of reasoning in the impugned memo dated 8th December, 2011, issued by the Prescribed Authority. . 4. AFTER considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the only issue that falls for consideration in the facts of the instant case is whether on 22nd March, 2011, the meeting could not be held for want of quorum or there was, in fact, no meeting at all. 5. IN order to find an answer to the above issue, it is necessary to have a look info the extract of the meeting supposedly held on 22nd March 2011, the extract of which the writ petitioners have obtained, upon invocation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 6. A bare perusal of the extract reveals that it has been signed by the Presiding Officer and records absence of all the members of the Gram Panchayat, individually. Thereafter, the Presiding Officer has categorically stated that since no member of the Gram Panchayat was present, for want of quorum, the meeting could not be held. 7. SUB-section (11) of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to-date), reads as follows : "(11) If the motion is not carried by the majority of its existing members or the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion for the removal of the same office bearer shall be taken into cognizance within a period of one year from the date appointed for such meeting." 8. A plain reading of the above provision of law postualtes either of the two conditions which puts an embargo and/or fetter on a notice of any subsequent motion for removal of the same office bearer for the period of one year from the date appointed for such meeting. One such condition is, if the motion for removal of a Pradhan is not carried by the majority of the existing members of the Gram Panchayat. The other condition is, if a meeting cannot be held for want of quorum. One such condition is, if the motion for removal of a Pradhan is not carried by the majority of the existing members of the Gram Panchayat. The other condition is, if a meeting cannot be held for want of quorum. Since, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are not concerned with the first condition, it would be worthwhile to understand the implication of the second condition, which carries the phrase, 'the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum'. Two words, 'meeting' and 'quorum', are relevant in the context of the above quoted phrase. The word, 'quorum', denotes the number of members of any body of persons whose presence at a meeting is requisite in order that business may be validly transacted. The other word, 'meeting', must mean to usually consist of more than one person or at least, one person, in certain exceptional circumstances. (See Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings, 11th Edition). 9. THEREFORE, it presupposes that in order to constitute a meeting, there is an absoulte necessity of the presence of more than one person, or at least, one person. If no person is present, the question of a meeting cannot arise at all. When the word, 'quorum', is used in the context of a meeting, it would mean the presence of such minimum number of members as necessitated by the regulations of the body concerned, in order to make a meeting valid. In the instant case, the quorum required for such meeting would have been more than fifty per cent of the existing members of the Gram Panchayat, in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to-date). It is, however, noticed from the extract dated 22nd March, 2011, that not a single elected member of the concerned Gram Panchayat was present. It is the admitted position that the meeting was convened by the Prescribed Authority. The Presiding Officer, who was present, was not an elected member of the concerned Gram Panchayat and nor was he entitled to vote. THEREFORE, in the absence of any elected member of the concerned Gram Panchayat, there was no meeting at all on 22nd March, 2011. The question of quorum or the lack of it would have arisen only if there was a meeting and not otherwise. 10. THEREFORE, in the absence of any elected member of the concerned Gram Panchayat, there was no meeting at all on 22nd March, 2011. The question of quorum or the lack of it would have arisen only if there was a meeting and not otherwise. 10. IN the absence of any meeting held on 22nd March, 2011, there was no embargo and/or fetter on the part of the Prescribed Authority, being the Block Development Officer, Murarai-II Development Block, Birbhum, to have called for a meeting for removal of Pradhan of Rudranagar Gram Panchayat to be held in terms of the requisition notices issued by the petitioners. 11. FOR reasons stated above, the memo dated 8th December, 2011, issued by the Prescribed Authority, being the Block Development Officer, Murarai-II Development Block, Birbhum, holding that no meeting for removal of Pradhan of Rudrangar Gram Panchayat could be held upto 22nd March, 2012. is liable to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside. 12. THE writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 13. URGENT photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Order accordingly.