SUNIL SARDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first writ petition was moved by one Sunil Sardar, a member of the Panchayat challenging the meeting requisitioned by the private respondents for removal of the Pradhan on the ground that 3 of the requisitionists were disqualified u/S. 11 (e) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and a resolution having been taken to that effect the same was forwarded to the prescribed authority for appropriate action. Therefore, the said 3 persons were disqualified from requisitioning the meeting. As such the notice for holding the meeting should be quashed.

(2.) In the said writ petition an interim order was granted that the meeting may be held the result may be published and the same may be given effect to. Subsequently, the second writ petition (A.S.T. 4087 of 2000) was moved by one Jahide Seikh who is also a member of the said Panchayat. It is almost the same relief that was asked for in the second writ petition as was asked for in the first writ petition and almost on indentical ground. Therefore, both these writ petitions are taken up in terms of order dated 21st November, 2000.

(3.) Mr. Bihani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in his submission has pointed out that in case the prescribed authority for some reason or other deals the process in removing the disqualified persons in that event such members in order to seek prevention of such removal may remove the Pradhan as has been done in the present case and thereby frustrate the whole democratic process. In as much as once a Pradhan is removed even if the newly elected Pradhan loses his majority still then a minority group will be at the helm of affairs frustrating the number of majority roll in a democratic set up. Therefore, according to him, it was incumbent on the prescribed authority to take immediate steps for removal of the said members as soon as they had incurred disqualification and should not have allowed the respodents to hold the meeting for removal of Prodhan. Alternatively, he contends that the decision u/S. 11 should have been taken by the prescribed authority before such meeting is concluded, otherwise this will erode the whole democratic system and create dead-stock in the administration and bring unwarranted consequences in the whole process in terms of S. 11 and pass appropriate order before the meeting is held and in case it is not so done in that event, the meeting may be postponed till such decision is taken.