JUDGMENT : Indra Prasanna Mukerji, J. On 29th July, 2013 the writ petitioner was elected as a member of the Punisole Gram Panchayat under Onda Development Block, Bankura. 2. On 1st August, 2013 a first information report was lodged against her. 3. On 19th August, 2013 the oath under Section 197 was administered to the elected members. According to Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner did not take the oath because of the pending first information report. 4. On 22nd November, 2013 the petitioner was taken into custody. A Division Bench of this Court on 7th January, 2014 granted bail to the petitioner. She was released from custody on 20th January, 2014. 5. Under Section 197 of the Panchayat Act 1977 every elected candidate of a gram panchayat is required to make and subscribe an oath or affirmation before an officer designated by the State government. Section 11(f) of the said Act provides that if such oath is not taken within six months of the election of the candidate, he is removed from the panchayat after having been given an opportunity to show-cause. 6. On 29th January, 2014, just at the close of the six months' period, the petitioner wrote to the prescribed authority that the oath be administered to her. 7. She filed a writ application in this Court (W.P. 18481 (W) of 2014 – Nahima Mondal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). The writ was disposed of on 2nd July, 2014 by granting the Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal to take a decision in the matter. 8. It appears from the records that the Special Secretary did not consider the matter at all. 9. On 17th September, 2014, the prescribed authority and Sub Divisional Officer, Bankura made a decision that since six months had expired after the election of the petitioner and no oath had been subscribed by her she was to be removed. 10. It is true that only a first information report had been lodged against the petitioner on 1st August, 2013 and she was free. It was her fault that she did not make and subscribe an oath which was administered on 19th August, 2013. 11. But on 22nd November, 2013 she was taken into custody and physically released on 20th January, 2014. Within six months she made an application for re-administration of oath. 12. It was her fault that she did not make and subscribe an oath which was administered on 19th August, 2013. 11. But on 22nd November, 2013 she was taken into custody and physically released on 20th January, 2014. Within six months she made an application for re-administration of oath. 12. In my reading of Section 11(f) of the said Act, an elected candidate has to take oath within six months of election. The sub-section states that "if he does not make and subscribe an oath or an affirmation"....Therefore, the language of the sub-section suggests that there should be some positive act on the part of the elected candidate to take the oath. It also suggests that if out of her own volition, the elected candidate does not take oath, an obligation is attached to the competent authority to summon the elected candidate and ask him or her to take oath within the period of six months. If the elected candidate still does not make and subscribe an oath, then the sanction imposed by sub-section 11(f) will start to operate. 13. In this case, I do not find a single letter by the prescribed authority to the petitioner asking her to take an oath. Moreover, the petitioner was in police custody for about two months. 14. Furthermore, in the earlier writ application, Mr. Justice Somadder had directed consideration of the writ petitioner's case. 15. The decision of the prescribed authority and Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Bankura dated 17th September, 2014 further to the said order of this Court only refers to non-attendance of the petitioner during the oath taking ceremony of all the elected candidates. It does not for a moment address the issue whether the petitioner was called upon to take an oath in the next few months, by the prescribed authority. Moreover, it did not make the consideration which was expected under the said order dated 2nd July, 2014. 16. Most importantly the Special Secretary did not take the decision but it was taken by somebody much junior to him. 17. In those circumstances, considering the above views of this Court, I direct that the prescribed authority issue an appropriate notice within two weeks of communication of this order, fixing the date for administration of oath to the writ petitioner by him. This oath will be administered within four weeks thereafter. 18. 17. In those circumstances, considering the above views of this Court, I direct that the prescribed authority issue an appropriate notice within two weeks of communication of this order, fixing the date for administration of oath to the writ petitioner by him. This oath will be administered within four weeks thereafter. 18. I make it clear that since the matter is pending for a very long time, any election duty of the prescribed authority should not prevent him from carrying out of this order. 19. All consequential steps emanating from this order including the cancellation of the bye-election should also be taken immediately. 20. All the papers are before this Court. Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. 21. The writ application is allowed. 22. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis. Writ application is allowed.