KRISHNA DHAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 claims to be the elected Pradhan of Paikar-I Gram Panchayat. situated under Murarai-II Development Block, in the district of Birbhum. The petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the elected members of the said Gram Panchayat and claim to be members of the Indian National Congress. In the instant writ petition, they are essentially challenging issuance of a memo dated 17th November, 2011, by the prescribed authority, being the Block Development Officer, Murarai-II Development Block, whereby notice was given for a meeting of the Gram Panchayat for consideration of a motion for removal of the writ petitioner No. 1 as the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have also challenged the two notices containing the no confidence motion dated 11th November, 2011 and 15th November, 2011, taken out by some members of the Gram Panchayat, based on which the impugned notice was published on 17th November, 2011.

(2.) The main thrust of challenge, as submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the prescribed authority could not have reached his satisfaction prior to issuing the impugned notice dated 17th November, 2011, in terms of section 12(3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended), in the given facts and circumstances. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the first notice containing the motion of no confidence dated 11th November, 2011, did not indicate party affiliation of the signatories to the said motion. The subsequent notice dated 15th November, 2011, containing an identical motion of no confidence. although had party affiliation of the signatories to the said notice indicated therein, there could not have been two parallel notices and in such circumstances, the prescribed authority ought to have satisfied himself as to which one of the two notices conformed to the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended). It was also categorically submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that no such satisfaction is manifest from the impugned notice dated 17th November, 2011, and as such the said notice is palpably bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 7 to 12 submitted that the impugned notice dated 17th November, 2011, was issued by the prescribed authority upon reaching due satisfaction in terms of sub-section (3) of section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. In order to reach such satisfaction, all that the prescribed authority was required to do was to take into consideration whether the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 12 had been substantially complied with. Learned counsel submitted that although the notice dated 11th November, 2011, did not indicate the party affiliation of the signatories, that defect was removed in the subsequent notice dated 15th November, 2011. In any event. non-indication of party affiliation would not have rendered the notice dated 11th November, 2011, bad in law. Relying on a recent unreported judgment of this Court rendered in W.P. 17499 (W) of 2011 (Manju Bala Singh Patar v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) on 2nd November, 2011, he submitted that the object of introducing section 12 sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) in the-statute was only to ensure that a motion of no confidence for removal of a Pradhan or an Upa-Pradhan was brought about and executed through a transparent democratic process which would ensure elimination of any clandestine design being evolved to oust either of them. In this context, learned counsel has also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Naru Gopal Chakraborty & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2006 4 CalHN 436. Reliance has been particularly placed on paragraph 8 of the said judgment and it is submitted that it must be remembered that in a democratic process there is no scope for allowing a person who has lost confidence to continue even for a minute after the resolution had taken place. He further submitted that such resolution had already been taken by the members of the Gram Panchayat in a meeting held on 29th November, 2011. wherein the writ petitioners also participated.