LAWS(CAL)-2010-5-49

MALATI SARKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On May 14, 2010
MALATI SARKAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Several grounds were taken in memorandum of appeal. Mr. Ashoke De, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant however raised the plea of insufficient notice being his sole contention before us.

(2.) In Hassan-II Gram Panchayat in the District of Birbhum, Malati Sarkar, the appellant, above named was elected as Pradhan by the members of the said Gram Panchayat being nine in numbers. Out of nine members five members lost confidence on Malati and asked her to convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat where they would intend to express their no confidence on her. The said notice dated March 3, 2010 appearing at page 41 was duly signed by five members being respondent No. 7 to 11 above named. The other three members being respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 however continued to repose confidence on Malati. The division of the Gram Panchayat, after such notice thus became four in favour of Malati including herself and five against her. Malati did not convene the meeting. The requisitionists, invoking Sections 12 and 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, gave a further notice of requisition meeting appearing at page 133-A. The said notice was also signed by respondent No. 7 to 11. They convened the meeting on March 31, 2010 scheduled to be held at 11 a.m. to consider the proposed resolution for removal of Malati from the post of Pradhan. The meeting was duly held and it now appears that Malati was removed from the office of the Pradhan. A Xerox copy of the resolution as handed over in Court was kept on record. The Block Development Officer being the prescribed authority under the said Act of 1973, asked Malati to hand over charge to Upa-pradhan.

(3.) Before the said meeting could be held Malati however approached the learned single Judge on March 29, 2010 inter alia praying for quashing of the said notice dated March 23, 2010 as also an order of restraint against respondent Nos. 7 to 11 and the State Authorities from holding any meeting in furtherance of the said impugned notice.