Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1045 (CAL)

Md. Sabir Hossain v. State of West Bengal

2016-12-20

BISWANATH SOMADDER, SANKAR ACHARYYA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. On 15th December, 2016, this Court had directed the learned advocate for the State to produce the memo of the Block Development Officer, Islampur, dated 20th October, 2016, which was referred to in the memo issued by the Inspector-in-Charge, Islampur Police Station, Uttar Dinajpur, dated 24th October, 2016. The same is produced in Court today. 2. Perusing the said memo dated 20th October, 2016, it appears that the Block Development Officer, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur, had written to the Inspector-in-Charge, Islampur Police Station, on the subject of deployment of police force at Panditpota–I Gram Panchayat. By the said memo dated 20th October, 2016, the concerned Block Development Officer informed the Inspector-in-Charge of the “no confidence motion” against the Pradhan of Panditpota–I Gram Panchayat, which was going to be held on 28th October, 2016, at 11 A.M. at the Gram Panchayat office. In such a factual backdrop, he merely requested the Inspector-in-Charge, Islampur Police Station, to deploy adequate number of police force at Panditpota–I Gram Panchayat on that day for maintaining law and order. Instead of acceding to the request made by the Prescribed Authority, the Inspector-in-Charge, Islampur Police Station, in terms of his memo dated 24th October, 2016, referred to the concerned Gram Panchayat as being “politically and communally very sensitive” and also referred to previous inter-party and intra-party clashes and came to a conclusion that if the “programme” of “no confidence motion” against the Pradhan of Panditpota–I Gram Panchayat was held on 28th October, 2016, there was every possibility of serious law and order problem between the political parties. In such circumstances, the Inspector-in-Charge, Islampur Police Station, requested the Block Development Officer to defer the date of “no confidence motion” against the Pradhan of Panditpota–I Gram Panchayat after completion of the Kali Puja, Diwali and Chhat Puja festivals. 3. The question that falls for consideration in the facts of the instant case is whether upon receipt of the memo dated 24th October, 2016, issued by the Inspector-in-Charge, Islampur Police Station, the concerned Block Development Officer, in his capacity as the Prescribed Authority, performed his statutory duty by applying his independent and objective mind or simply and mechanically acted in terms of the request made by the Inspector-in-Charge of the local police station to defer the date for holding of the meeting of Panditpota–I Gram Panchayat. 4. 4. The answer appears to be clear from the order issued by him as the Prescribed Authority on 26th October, 2016. Instead of applying his own objective and independent mind, the concerned Block Development Officer, as the Prescribed Authority, decided to cancel the scheduled date for holding of the meeting of the concerned Gram Panchayat in respect of a “no confidence motion” against the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat purely on the basis of the police report and nothing else. 5. The role of the Prescribed Authority has been defined and explained very recently in a judgment rendered by this Division Bench on 6th December, 2016, in the case of Shiladitya Halder Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (MAT 1868 of 2016 with CAN 10523 of 2016), wherein it has been observed, inter alia, as follows: “It is, however, necessary to observe at this stage that a public authority – who is obliged to perform his duties under a statute – is required to perform such duties in such a fair and transparent manner so that no person can raise either an eyebrow or point an accusatory finger at the said authority who is merely performing his statutory obligations. This is to be borne in mind by all those public authorities who are obliged to perform such statutory duties, particularly which directly affect the interest of those public institutions which run on democratic principles, such as institutions under the three tier Panchayati Raj system. Care should be taken by a public authority during the decision making process in order to ensure that there is no element of doubt created in the minds of those persons who are likely to be affected by the decision of the said public authority who merely performs his duties and obligations under a statute.” 6. As such, it was the bounden duty of the concerned Block Development Officer, being the Prescribed Authority, to give his own independent, objective, cogent and justifiable reasons in terms of section 12(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to-date) as to why the date of the meeting scheduled on 28th October, 2016, was required to be cancelled. As such, it was the bounden duty of the concerned Block Development Officer, being the Prescribed Authority, to give his own independent, objective, cogent and justifiable reasons in terms of section 12(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to-date) as to why the date of the meeting scheduled on 28th October, 2016, was required to be cancelled. Merely referring to the police report and reiterating whatever was stated therein cannot be held to be an act of exercising an independent and objective reasoned mind by the Prescribed Authority acting in terms of the relevant provision of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to-date). 7. The order dated 26th October, 2016, passed by the Block Development Officer, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur, being the Prescribed Authority, thus, cannot stand scrutiny under judicial review since it was neither objective nor independent exercise of a reasoned mind by a statutory authority performing his obligations under the relevant statute, i.e., the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to-date). The said order dated 26th October, 2016, was, therefore, liable to be set aside by the learned Single Judge when the same was challenged in CAN 10794 of 2016, by the appellant herein. 8. In such circumstances, we allow the application, being CAN 10794 of 2016, upon setting aside the order dated 11th November, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in the said application. 9. The instant appeal and the application for stay are accordingly disposed of. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Biswanath Somadder & Sankar Acharyya, JJ. I agree.