BHARAT DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has described himself as the Sabhadhipati of North 24-Parganas Zilla Parishad. He has filed the instant writ petition, challenging an order dated 26th March, 2012, issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Panchayats and Rural Development Department, in exercise of power conferred in terms of section 212 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. When the matter was initially taken up for consideration on 27th June, 2012, it was adjourned in order to enable the learned senior counsel for the petitioner to produce a copy of the resolution of North 24-Parganas Zilla Parishad, duly empowering and/or authorizing the writ petitioner to represent the said Zilla Parishad on its behalf. The preliminary point of maintainability was kept open and this Court had further directed the concerned authority of the State to produce all relevant records, in connection with the matter on the adjourned date. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up for consideration on 4th July, 2012, after hearing the parties, this Court had directed filing of affidavits. Consequently, the matter now appears under the heading, "For Final Disposal". The preliminary point of maintainability, which was kept open when the matter was initially moved, is now sought to be pressed by the learned Advocate General, who represents the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (North), being the Executive Officer of the North 24-Parganas Zilla Parishad. He submits that the order, which has been impugned in the instant writ petition, was passed under the provision of section 212 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The said provision of law does not contemplate issuance of any specific instruction or direction to be given to a Sabhadhipati of a Zilla Parishad by the State Government. As such, the Sabhadhipati of North 24-Parganas Zilla Parishad cannot be an "aggrieved person" for the purpose of approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned Advocate General, only some of the powers of the North 24-Parganas Zilla Parishad have been taken away, consequent upon the impugned order coming into force. He also submits that the petitioner has not produced any copy of a resolution, adopted by the North 24-Parganas Zilla Parishad, duly empowering and/or authorising him to represent the interest of the North 24-Parganas Zilla Parishad in respect of the impugned order dated 26th March, 2012. He also refers to the various provisions of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, in order to submit that the relevant provisions of law would amply demonstrate that the Zilla Parishad is a body corporate and the Sabhadhipati is chosen from its members, to be its official spokesperson and administrative head. The powers of the Sabhadhipati have not been curtailed in any manner, upon the impugned order coming into force. He, thus, submits that since the concerned Zilla Parishad has not approached this Court, the writ petition cannot be held to be maintainable at the instance of the Sabhadhipati. He relies on the following judgments on the point of maintainability:

(2.) On the other hand, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner does not dispute the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgments, which have been relied upon by the learned Advocate General. He, however, submits that it will be clear from a mere glance of the impugned order dated 26th March, 2012, that a copy of the same had been forwarded to his client, namely, the Sabhadhipati, North 24-Parganas Zilla Parishad. He submits that the impugned order seeks to curtail the powers of the Sabhadhipati of North 24-Parganas Zilla Parishad and as such it cannot be said that the Sabhadhipati is not an aggrieved person for the purpose of approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this context, he relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Subhas Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2011 7 SCC 616(paragraph 25).

(3.) After considering the respective submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that in order to answer the issue with regard to maintainability of the instant writ petition, it is necessary to advert to the impugned order dated 26th March, 2012, which is reproduced hereinbelow, in its entirety: