Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1295 (CAL)

Abdur Rahaman Halder v. State of West Bengal

2022-09-07

AMRITA SINHA

body2022
JUDGMENT : AMRITA SINHA, J. 1. The petitioners are the eleven elected members of Hariharpur Gram Panchayat, Mograhat I, Usthi, South 24 Parganas. The said gram panchayat has sixteen elected members. The petitioners submitted a requisition notice dated 08.04.2022 before the prescribed authority for removal of the respondent no. 8 who is the Pradhan of the said gram panchayat. 2. The petitioners’ grievance is that the prescribed authority did not take steps to convene the meeting in accordance with the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The time period for taking steps in response to the requisition notice has not been adhered to and the same is indirectly standing in the way of removal of the Pradhan. The petitioners pray for a direction upon the prescribed authority to act in accordance with law. 3. The petitioners rely upon the judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.01.2022 in WPA No. 15058 of 2021 (Rahuja Bibi and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others). 4. Learned Advocate representing the prescribed authority as well as the respondent no. 8 submits that an earlier requisition notice was served for removal of the Pradhan in November 2021 by twelve members of the said gram panchayat, but thereafter by a letter dated 13.01.2022, the requisitionists withdrew their requisition dated 30.11.2021. The prescribed authority, with the intention to verify the signatures of the requisitionists, served notice dated 24.01.2022 upon the twelve requisitionists requiring them to appear on 03.02.2022 for hearing their statement(s) with regard to withdrawal of their requisition. None appeared for verification of signatures. 5. According to the respondents as the requisition notice could not be carried through, as such, the provision of Section 12 (11) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 will act as a bar and there is no scope for calling a second meeting for removal of the Pradhan within one year from the date of the first requisition. 6. The respondents refer to the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CPAN No. 111 of 2022 in WPA 20837 of 2021 (Mahfuza Khatun and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others). It has been submitted that Mahfuza Khatun is the petitioner number eight in the present writ petition and she was the petitioner No. 1 in the earlier writ petition. It has been submitted that Mahfuza Khatun is the petitioner number eight in the present writ petition and she was the petitioner No. 1 in the earlier writ petition. The Hon’ble Court in the contempt proceeding was pleased to hold that, for the interest of the villagers and for the development of the gram panchayat, the requisitionists did not proceed with the no-confidence motion. At this stage there is no scope for entertaining a fresh requisition. 7. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The issue to be decided in the present writ petition is whether Section 12 (11) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 will be a bar to submit fresh requisition notice within a year if the earlier requisition notice was withdrawn or not proceeded with by the requisitionists. 9. Section 12 deals with the provision for bringing in motion of no confidence for removal of Pradhan. The process of removal involves various stages. All the steps or stages are interlinked and one depends upon the other. In the event of non-compliance of a particular step, the next falls through. The corresponding sections detailing the stages/steps involved in the present case are as under: (i) Section 12(1) of the aforesaid Act lays down that a Pradhan of a gram panchayat may, at any time, be removed from his office by the majority of the existing members of the gram panchayat, expressing their lack of confidence against the Pradhan or recording their decision to remove the Pradhan, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. (ii) Section 12 (2) lays down that for the purpose of removal of the Pradhan, one third of the existing members, subject to a minimum of three members, shall sign a motion in writing expressing their lack of confidence against the Pradhan and either deliver the motion in person through any of the members or send it by registered post to the prescribed authority. (iii) Section 12(3) mentions that the prescribed authority on receipt of the motion shall satisfy himself that it conforms to the requirements of sub section 2 and on his satisfaction shall specially convene, by issue of notice, within five working days of the receipt of the motion, a meeting of the gram panchayat fixing date and hour of the meeting and sending such notice at least before seven clear days to each of its existing members for consideration of the motion and for taking a decision on it. (iv) Section 12(11) mentions that if the motion is not carried by the majority of its existing members or the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion for the removal of the office bearer shall be taken into cognizance within a period of one year from the date appointed for such meeting. 10. In the instant case, a requisition notice for removal of Pradhan was submitted on 30.11.2021 but the meeting could not be held as the prescribed authority could not satisfy himself that it conforms to the requirements of sub section (2). The requisition proceeded only till stage of S. 12 (2) and did not cross the S. 12 (3) stage. As the meeting could not be held, accordingly, the requisition notice lost its force. 11. The bar of sub section (11) comes to play only if: (a) the motion is not carried by the majority of its existing members. (b) the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum. 12. As none of the aforesaid two criteria has been fulfilled in the present case, hence, the bar will not be applicable. Moreover, the bar becomes applicable only after the date of the meeting is fixed and not prior thereto. 13. The expression used in Section 12 (1) is that the Pradhan may be removed at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and S.12 (11) makes it abundantly clear that no notice of any subsequent motion for the removal of the office bearer shall be taken into cognizance within a period of one year from the date appointed for such meeting. 14. Here, the meeting was not fixed at all. The motion, i.e. the requisition notice which was submitted could not be acted upon as the prescribed authority could not satisfy himself about the signatures of the requisitionists. 14. Here, the meeting was not fixed at all. The motion, i.e. the requisition notice which was submitted could not be acted upon as the prescribed authority could not satisfy himself about the signatures of the requisitionists. The signatures of the requisitionists could not be verified as they failed to turn up on the date fixed for verification of their signatures. At that stage itself the motion stood aborted. 15. A subsequent requisition notice was issued by the requisitionists on 08.04.2022. The prescribed authority did not take any steps to proceed in response to the same, allegedly under the mistaken conception that, the subsequent notice was barred under section 12 (11) of the Act. 16. The prescribed authority failed to appreciate that as the earlier requisition notice stood abandoned at the very first stage, the bar under Section 12 (11) will neither apply nor stand in the way of proceeding with the subsequent requisition notice. 17. Had the requisition notice matured to the stage of the meeting when voting takes place and if at that stage the motion failed for want of majority or for want of quorum, then only the bar would have been attracted. 18. The date within which the verification of the signatures ought to have been made in respect of the second requisition notice, is also over. At this stage, it is not possible to revive the requisition notice issued on 08.04.2022. The only course of action, at this stage, is to submit fresh requisition notice if the requisitionists still intend to remove the Pradhan. 19. The members who have lost confidence in the Pradhan may take steps to submit fresh requisition in accordance with law, if so advised. If such requisition notice is submitted, the prescribed authority shall take steps on receipt of the same in accordance with law, and especially within the time limit as prescribed in the Act. In this case, the bar under S. 12(11) will not stand in the way to bring in fresh requisition notice, if any, if occasion so arises. 20. The writ petition stands disposed of. 21. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties or their advocates on record expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.