JUDGMENT : Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. In this case, the following issues are to be determined: - "(i) Whether the concerned Pradhan and the local police authority on the dictate of rival business group could prevent the petitioner to carry on his Cable TV network business in the area ? (ii) Whether the concerned Pradhan could issue communication letter dated 14th June, 2017 ignoring the administrative order dated 10th March, 2017 passed by the concerned Block Development Officer in his quasi-judicial capacity ? (iii) Whether the conduct of the Pradhan illegally and motivatedly preventing the petitioner to carry on Cable TV network business clearly violates Article 21 and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India?" 2. The fact of the case in brief is as follows :- "The petitioner being the young entrepreneur with the contemplation to start a business of operating cable network had made an application to the Pradhan of Karmarchak Gram Panchayat on 26th August, 2015. Accordingly on 28th August, 2015 the petitioner deposited Rs.500/- towards the fees for grant of trade license in his favour. Thereafter certificate of enlistment was also issued to the petitioner by the concerned authority on 26th August, 2015. On 19th July, 2016 a trade license for enlistment was issued to the petitioner for the year 2016-17. The petitioner on 1st August, 2016 upon commencement of the said business paid appropriate entertainment tax for rupees one thousand before the Agricultural Income Tax Officer and certificate to that effect was also issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner on 11th August, 2016 applied for registration as a cable operator before the postal authorities. Subsequently on 16th August, 2016 the petitioner was served with a notice that the trade license has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 19th July, 2016 was not appropriate and that he was required to rectify the defects within two days. Accordingly, on 18th August, 2016 the Post Master issued a letter to the appropriate authority forwarding the papers and documents deposited by the petitioner for verification and return of the same." After appropriate verification of the documents the certificate of registration as a cable operator was issued to the petitioner by the concerned Post Master valid till 23rd August, 2017. Unfortunately by a purported communication dated 25th August, 2016 the Pradhan of Kamarchak Gram Panchayat cancelled the petitioner's trade license. Unfortunately by a purported communication dated 25th August, 2016 the Pradhan of Kamarchak Gram Panchayat cancelled the petitioner's trade license. By the impugned communication dated 1st September, 2016 the petitioner was informed that on the basis of a communication dated 25th August, 2016 by the Pradhan of Kamarchak Gram Panchayat. The trade license of the petitioner was cancelled and accordingly the Cable TV of the petitioner was also disconnected. Against such illegal action petitioner made repeated representations before the respondent authorities but all in vain. Resultantly the petitioner without finding any alternative filed a writ petition being WP No. 643 (W) of 2017. That writ petition was disposed of on 16th January, 2017 thereby quashing both the letter dated 5th August, 2016 written by the respondent No. 6 to the Post Master, Head Post Office, Diamond Harbour South 24-Parganas as well as the letter dated 26th September, 2016 issued by the Headmaster HSG-1. Thereafter on 2nd March 2017 the petitioner was served with a notice from the Block Development Officer, Kulpi Panchayat Samity. Accordingly, the petitioner on 10th March, 2017 went to the office of the Block Development Officer to attend the hearing. After the hearing the Block Development Officer on 10th March, 2017 passed an order. Pursuant to the order passed by the Block Development Officer on 10th March, 2017 the petitioner on 20th April, 2017 made further representation before the Pradhan of the Karmachak Gram Panchayat for the renewal of his trade license. Unfortunately by the impugned order dated 28th June, 2017 the petitioner was informed by the Pradhan of the Karmachak Gram Panchayat that the petitioner's application for renewal of the trade license has been cancelled pursuant to the decision adopted in the meeting dated 23rd March, 2017. 3. Mr. Anindya Lahiri, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner strongly submitted that cancellation of the trade license is wholly without jurisdiction of the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat and also in violation of the quasi judicial order passed by the Block Development officer on 10th March, 2017 pursuant to the Hon'ble Court's order. 4. Mr. Lahiri further vehemently urged that the meeting dated 23rd March, 2017 of the Gram Panchayat is null and void since the Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to interfere in the business of the petitioner and further acted at the dictate of his business rivals. 5. Mr. 4. Mr. Lahiri further vehemently urged that the meeting dated 23rd March, 2017 of the Gram Panchayat is null and void since the Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to interfere in the business of the petitioner and further acted at the dictate of his business rivals. 5. Mr. Lahiri further strongly argued that the authority being influenced by his business rivals passed the cancellation order. Furthermore, Mr. Lahiri contended that impugned order of cancellation is wholly contrary to the Article 21 and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Lahiri further contended that the concerned Pradhan was under obligation to comply with the directions passed by the BDO on 10th March, 2017 pursuant to the Hon'ble Court's order. Mr. Lahiri also drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 58 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004 which is quoted below :- "58-Fees, rates, tolls etc.-(1) A Gram Panchayat may levy fees, rates and tolls within the meaning of section 47 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (West Ben. Act XLI of 1973) subject to the maximum rates as annexed to this rule : (2) A Gram Panchayat may issue provisional certificate of registration for running trade, wholesale or retail within its jurisdiction in Form 11, unless such registration or such trade is prohibited under any law for the time being in force, on realisation of a fee, subject to the maximum rates as annexed to this rule: Provided that running of such trade is subject to renewal of its registration annually by the Gram Panchayat on realisation of a fee within the maximum limit as annexed to this rule." 7. Mr. Lahiri also relied on Rule 4B of the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, some portion of which is quoted below :- "4B. Right of way for cable operators and permission by public authority.-(I) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any cable operator entitled for providing cable services may, from time to time, lay ad establish cables and erect posts under, over, along, across, in or upon any immovable property vested in or under the control or management of a public authority. Right of way for cable operators and permission by public authority.-(I) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any cable operator entitled for providing cable services may, from time to time, lay ad establish cables and erect posts under, over, along, across, in or upon any immovable property vested in or under the control or management of a public authority. (II) Any public authority under whose control or management any immovable property is vested may, on receipt of a request from a cable operator permit the cable operator to do all or any of the following acts, namely :- (a) to place and maintain underground cables or posts; and (b) to enter on the property, from time to time, in order to place, examine, repair, alter or remove such cables or posts (III) The facility of right of any under this section for laying underground cables, and erecting posts, shall be available to all cable operators subject to the obligation of reinstatement or restoration of the property or payment of reinstatement or restoration charges in respect thereof at the option of the public authority." 8. Mr. Lahiri further vehemently urged that it is evident from the Sub Paragraph (e) of Paragraph-4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 6 that the respondent No. 6 in connivance with the existing Cable TV Operators had cancelled the petitioner's license. Sub-Paragraph (e) of the Paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition is quoted below:- "(e) It is fact that the competent authority namely Kamarchak Gram Panchayat, Kulpi, South 24-Parganas in its meeting held on March 23, 2017 took a resolution to the effect that the renewal application of trade license submitted by the writ petitioner herein was treated to the cancelled in view of the fact that the present writ petitioner herein had taken recourse of illegal activities in interrupting the customer service being rendered at the behest of existing cable operator namely Bishwadarshan Cable Network Private Ltd. within its periphery." 9. Mr. Lahiri further contended that in the affidavit-in-opposition the respondent authority had taken a new plea that the license has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the formalities as laid down under the Cable TV Network Regulation Act, 1995. 10. Mr. Lahiri emphasising his argument thereby submitted that the respondent authority cannot improve their case by filing the affidavits ignoring the facts situation. 10. Mr. Lahiri emphasising his argument thereby submitted that the respondent authority cannot improve their case by filing the affidavits ignoring the facts situation. In support of his contention Mr. Lahiri relied on one Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1976 SC Page-851 Para-8. (Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors) 11. In conclusion Mr. Lahiri prayed that Hon'ble Court should set aside the rejection order dated 14th June, 2017. 12. Per contra, Mr. Susovan Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 6 vehemently urged that the petitioner cannot continue his cable TV operator business in view of the fact that the renewal application for trade license submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority i.e. Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat on 14th June, 2017. 13. Mr. Sengupta further contended that in view of the above fact the registration certificate issued on 23rd August, 2016 in favour of the petitioner under Section 4 of the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 has to be treated as non-est. 14. Mr. Sengupta further strongly argued that by virtue of the meeting of the Kamarchak Gram Panchayat Kulpi, South 24-Parganas held on March 23, 2017 whereby the petitioner's application for renewal of the trade license was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner illegally interrupting the customer service being rendered at the behest of the existing cable operator namely Biswadarshan Cable Network Private Ltd. 15. Before parting with his argument Mr. Sengupta submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court without interfering with the impugned rejection order dated 14th June, 2017. 16. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and after perusing the record I find that the petitioner after obtaining requisite trade license started a cable operating business in the concerned area. 17. It is also evident from the records that after proper verification of the document the certificate of registration as a cable operator was issued to the petitioner by the concerned Post Master in the name of the petitioner's proprietorship concerned under the style of M/s. "I-Connection". That certificate of registration was valid till 23rd August, 2017. 18. 17. It is also evident from the records that after proper verification of the document the certificate of registration as a cable operator was issued to the petitioner by the concerned Post Master in the name of the petitioner's proprietorship concerned under the style of M/s. "I-Connection". That certificate of registration was valid till 23rd August, 2017. 18. It is also evident from the records that assailing the communication letter dated 25th August, 2016 issued by the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat and the communication letter dated 1st September, 2016 petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being W.P No. 643 (W) of 2017. That writ petition was disposed of on 16th January, 2017 thereby directing the Block Development Officer and the Executive Officer, Kulpi Panchayat Samity, South 24-Parganas to take decision in favour of the petitioner's representation dated 12th September, 2016 within 4 weeks from the date of communication of that order. 19. It is also evident that pursuant to that order hearing was held by the Block Development Officer at his office on 10th March, 2017. Pursuant to the said hearing the concerned Block Development Officer by his administrative order directed the Pradhan of the Kamarchak Gram Panchayat to allow the operator of the cable TV network trade by "I-Connection", the petitioner herein in the said Gram Panchayat area. Pursuant to that administrative order passed by the Block Development Officer the petitioner made representation before the Pradhan of Kamarchak Gram Panchayat for renewal of his trade license. 20. It is also evident from records that by order dated 14th June, 2016 which was served upon the petitioner on 28th June, 2016 the Pradhan of the Kamarchak Gram Panchayat in a meeting dated 23rd March, 2017 had taken a resolution to cancel the trade license of the petitioner on the ground of rival cable operators operating in Kamarchak Gram Panchayat area. 21. Court cannot ignore the fact that pursuant to the earlier Court order the Block Development Officer vide its order dated 10th March, 2017 had already directed the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat to allow the petitioner to operate the cable network business at the said Panchayat area. 21. Court cannot ignore the fact that pursuant to the earlier Court order the Block Development Officer vide its order dated 10th March, 2017 had already directed the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat to allow the petitioner to operate the cable network business at the said Panchayat area. Therefore, in my considered view the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat is under obligation to carry out the direction of the Block Development Officer dated 10th March, 2017 thereby allowing the petitioner to run the Cable TV network business in the concerned area. Unfortunately in the present case it is lacking. 22. Court also cannot shut its eye on the factual matrix of the case that the Pradhan cancelled the application of the petitioner for renewal on the plea that other cable TV operator of that area namely Biswadarshan Cable Network had already been carrying on the cable TV network business at that area. It is surprising that an elected Pradhan is acting at the dictate of a cable TV businessman of that area namely Biswadarshan Cable Network thereby ignoring the direction issued by his higher authority, the concerned Block Development Officer pursuant to the Hon'ble Courts order. In this connection reliance is placed on (I) 2004 (2) SCC Page-65 Paragraph-26 (Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia And Others) (ii) 2011 (5) SCC Page-435 Paragraphs-26 to 28 (Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) And Others v. Director General of Civil Aviation And Others) which are quoted below:- "2004 (2) Page-65 Para-26-It is also well settled that if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on the suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to lay, the same would be ultra vires". 2011 (5) SCC Page-435 Para-26-28- The connection was raised before the High Court that the Circular dated 29-5-2008 has been issued by the authority having no competence, thus cannot be enforced. It is a settled legal proposition that the authority which has been conferred with the competence under the statute alone can pass the order. No other person, even a superior authority, can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority. It is a settled legal proposition that the authority which has been conferred with the competence under the statute alone can pass the order. No other person, even a superior authority, can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority. In a democratic set-up like ours, persons occupying key positions are not supposed to mortgage their discretion, volition and decision-making authority and be prepared to give way to carry out commands having no sanctity in law. Thus, if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. (Vide Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commr. of Bihar, Cahndrika Jha v. State of Bihar, Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and Manohar Lal v Ugrasen) Para-27-Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Commr. of Police v Gordhandas Bhanji, Bahadursingh Lakhubhai Gohil v Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Pancham Chand v State of H.P observing that an authority vested with the power to act under the statute alone should exercise its discretion following the procedure prescribed therein and interference on the part of any authority upon whom the statute does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law. It violates the constitutional scheme. Para-28-In view of the above, the legal position emerges that the authority who has been vested with the power to exercise its discretion alone can pass the order. Even a senior official cannot provide for any guideline or direction to the authority under the statute to act in a particular manner." (Emphasis supplied) 23. I also find that under Section 58 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules 2004 a Gram Panchayat may issue provisional certificate of registration for running trade wholesale or retail within its jurisdiction on Form 11, unless such registration or such trade is prohibited under any law in force on realisation of a fee, subject to the maximum as annexed to this rule. Provided that running of such trade is subject to renewal of its registration annually by the Gram Panchayat on realisation of a fee within the maximum limit as annexed to this rule. Provided that running of such trade is subject to renewal of its registration annually by the Gram Panchayat on realisation of a fee within the maximum limit as annexed to this rule. Unfortunately in the case in hand though the petitioner has complied all the formalities for renewal of the said license but his renewal application has been rejected by the concerned Gram Panchayat on wholly unsustainable extraneous plea as above discussed. It was not rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with any of formalities prescribed under Rule 58 of the said Rules 2004. In my view the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat being the representative of that area should not encourage/take side of any existing businessman to carry on his business as a monopoly in the area. But in the present case it is found that Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat is indulging that practice thereby allowing the Biswadarshan Cable Network to run their cable network business as monopoly thereby obstructing the petitioner to enter that area for running his cable TV network business as a competitor of Biswadarshan Cable TV Network. The act and conduct of the Pradhan is deplorable and unbecoming of a people's representation. 24. Considering the above discussions and perusing the records and the relevant Sections, Rules and the citations as Mohinder Singh case (Supra) & Bahadursinh Lakhubhai case (Supra), Joint Action Committee case (Supra) I have no hesitation to hold that the decision taken by the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat in the meeting dated 23rd March, 2017 to cancel the trade license of the petitioner is not sustainable in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case. Resultantly, the impugned decision dated 23rd March, 2017 adopted by the Pradhan of Kamarchak Gram Panchayat communicating the same to the petitioner on 14th June, 2017 is quashed and set aside. 25. I direct the Pradhan of Kamarchak Gram Panchayat to comply with the direction of respondent No. 4 the Block Development Officer and Executive Officer dated 10th March, 2017 thereby directing the Pradhan to allow the petitioner (I-Connection, Prasenjit Mondal as the proprietor) to operate Cable TV network trade in the said Gram Panchayat jurisdiction after renewing the petitioner's trade license without any further delay but positively within a period of 4 (Four) weeks from the date of communication of this order. The violation of the order would be treated as contempt of Court. 26. With these directions this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 27. Urgent photostat copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties after fulfilling all the formalities.