Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 698 (CAL)

Kabita Bauri v. State of West Bengal

2014-07-30

BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2014
JUDGMENT Biswanath Somadder, J. :- In the instant writ petition, the petitioners are all members of Basudebpur-Jemari Gram Panchayat, situated in the district of Burdwan. They have challenged the notice dated 26th August, 2013, issued by the Prescribed Authority, being the Block Development Officer calling for a meeting for electing Pradhan/Upa-Pradhan for the said Gram Panchayat. According to the petitioners, the records would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner no.1 was elected as a Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat, in a meeting held on 16th August, 2013. Such result was published in the notice board in the presence of all and the fact of holding of the meeting was duly recorded in the resolution book. However, the petitioner No. 1, was never handed over the charge of the office of the Pradhan of Basudebpur-Jemari Gram Panchayat by the Prescribed Authority. Instead, a fresh notice was issued on 26th August, 2013, calling for a meeting to elect Pradhan/Upa-Pradhan of Basudebpur-Jemari Gram Panchayat, which is now impugned in the instant writ proceeding. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that once a Pradhan has been elected by the general body of a Gram Panchayat validly, the Block Development Officer had no authority to issue a fresh notice or issue a corrigendum dated 27th August, 2013, which is annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed earlier by the petitioners. In the affidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, being the Block Development Officer, Salanpur Development Block, it has been stated, inter alia, that the name of the petitioner no.1, was proposed and seconded as Pradhan from CPIM and the name of Smt. Rinku Bauri, being the respondent no.8, was proposed and seconded from AITMC. The Presiding Officer requested both the candidates to produce their Scheduled Caste Certificates because the Pradhan’s seat was reserved for a scheduled caste woman. Smt. Rinku Bauri failed to produce her caste certificate at that time and she wanted some more time for producing the original caste certificate. The Presiding Officer, thereafter, declared the petitioner no.1, as the Pradhan of Basudebpur-Jemari Gram Panchayat. After declaration of Pradhan, Smt. Rinku Bauri, being the private respondent no.8, submitted her original scheduled caste certificate to the Presiding Officer and requested the said officer to consider her case and also demanded repeal of election of the Pradhan. Such prayer was rejected by the Presiding Officer. After declaration of Pradhan, Smt. Rinku Bauri, being the private respondent no.8, submitted her original scheduled caste certificate to the Presiding Officer and requested the said officer to consider her case and also demanded repeal of election of the Pradhan. Such prayer was rejected by the Presiding Officer. It has been further stated by the Block Development Officer that the Presiding Officer did not give sufficient time to Rinku Bauri to produce her caste certificate. Thereafter, the members of the AITMC made an application to the Block Development Officer, Salanpur Block, to convene a fresh election of Prodhan. It has been stated that the general public and elected members of the Gram Panchayat belonging to the AITMC continued their demonstration and there was a serious law and order problem and the situation was getting out of control. It is also stated by the concerned Block Development Officer that in the notice dated 8th August, 2013, it was not mentioned that the caste certificate was required to be produced and as such, the decision of the Presiding Officer was not valid. In such circumstances, the Block Development Officer, as the Prescribed Authority, decided to hold a fresh election of the Pradhan and accordingly a notice dated 26th August, 2013, was issued and served upon all the elected members of Basudebpur-Jemari Gram Panchayat. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as stated above, the only issue that falls for consideration is whether a fresh notice for election of the Pradhan of Basudebpur-Jemari Gram Panchayat, could have been issued by the Prescribed Authority or not. It is noticed that when the initial notice was issued by the Prescribed Authority on 8th August, 2013, there was no specific mention for production of any caste certificate by the candidates who aspired to be the Pradhan of Basudebpur-Jemari Gram Panchayat. In such circumstances, the Presiding Officer ought to have given adequate opportunity to both the candidates to enable them produce their caste certificates for being considered eligible to be elected as Pradhan of Basudebpur-Jemari Gram Panchayat. The Presiding Officer not having given that opportunity to Rinku Bauri, the subsequent decision of the Prescribed Authority to call for a fresh election of Pradhan by issuing the notice dated 26th August, 2013, cannot be held to be bad in law. For reasons stated above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.