Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 822 (CAL)

Sagar Chatterjee v. District Magistrate, Bankura

2012-08-31

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioners claiming various reliefs. The petitioner no.1 claimed himself to be the Leader of the House. The petitioner no.2 is the Secretary of Bankura District Committee of C.P.I.(M) party. The petitioner no.3 is the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Bankura District Committee. 2. Two complaints were made before the competent authority for declaring the respondent no.3 who was one of the Councillors belonging to C.P.I.(M) party, as disqualified as she, after being elected as a Councillor of Ward No.5 in Sonamukhi Municipality on the ticket of C.P.I.(M) party has joined Trinamool Congress party after six months after her election as Councillor of the said Municipality. One of such complaints was submitted by the petitioner no.1 who claimed himself to be the Leader of the House and the other one was submitted by the Secretary of the District Committee of C.P.I.(M) party. 3. Pending disposal of those two complaints before the concerned authority, a notice dated 1st August, 2012 was served by the opposition members belonging to the Trinamool Congress party upon the Chairman of the said Municipality requesting him to convene a meeting on the agenda of no confidence against the Chairman as he lost confidence of the majority members of the Board of Councillors. 4. Instead of convening any meeting for the said purpose, the Chairman of the said Municipality requested the competent authority to expedite the disposal of the complaints submitted by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, so that he can convene a meeting for the said purpose immediately after disposal of those two complaints. 5. The petitioners herein have prayed for quashing of the said request letter, as according to them, no confidence motion cannot be moved until the disqualification proceeding is concluded. 6. In this context, the petitioners have claimed twofold reliefs; one for quashing of the impugned notice by which the Chairman was called upon to convene meeting on the agenda of no confidence and another for issuance of direction upon the competent authority, viz., the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur, Bankura, the respondent no.2 to dispose of the complaints made by the petitioners for declaring the respondent no.3 as disqualified at an early date. 7. 7. With regard to the relief which the petitioners have claimed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.2 for early consideration of those two complaints, this Court feels it necessary to mention here that during the pendency of the writ petition, those complaints have been decided by the respondent no.2. and as such, the relief which the petitioners claimed in this writ petition for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.2 for early consideration of those complaints, has now become infructuous. 8. So far as the other relief is concerned i.e., for quashing of the impugned notice dated 1st August, 2012, this Court is of the view that no such relief as prayed for by the petitioners can be granted for the following reason :- The removal of the Chairman of a Municipality is dealt with in Section 18 (3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. By said notice some of the Councillors of the said Municipality requested the Chairman to convene a meeting on the agenda of no confidence against the Chairman. Though the Chairman was required to convene the said meeting as per the provision of the said Act but he did not do so without any valid reason. In fact, convening of such a meeting was postponed by him, due to pendency of the disqualification proceeding against one of the Councillors before the competent authority. 9. Let me see how far the Chairman was justified in not convening the said meeting due to pendency of the disqualification proceeding against one of the Councillors. There is no provision in the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 which provides that such meeting can be postponed until the decision is taken by the competent authority in the proceeding for disqualification of a Councillor. The Act does not provide that a Councillor against whom a disqualification proceeding has been initiated can be debarred from participating in any proceeding of the municipality during the pendency of the said disqualification proceeding. There is no provision in the Act for suspending any such councillor during the pendency of a disqualification proceeding against him/her. As such, the Councillor against whom such a proceeding has been initiated, has every right to participate in all the proceedings in the municipality so long as he or she is not removed by following the provisions of the law. As such, the Councillor against whom such a proceeding has been initiated, has every right to participate in all the proceedings in the municipality so long as he or she is not removed by following the provisions of the law. Thus, the respondent no.3 was competent enough to participate in all the proceeding of the Municipality including in the no confidence motion, if any meeting for the said purpose would have been held during the pendency of the disqualification proceeding against her. 10. As such, pendency of the disqualification proceeding before the competent authority against one of the Councillor cannot be a ground either for refusal to convene a meeting for discussing the agenda of no confidence against the Chairman or for quashing of the request letter by which the Chairman was requested to convene a meeting on the agenda of no confidence against the Chairman. 11. As such, this Court holds that the relief which the petitioners have claimed in this writ petition for quashing of the said request letter dated 1st August, 2012 cannot be granted by this Court. 12. The writ petition thus stands rejected. 13. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate for the petitioner immediately.