MENOKA HALDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is the Pradhan of srichanda Gram Panchayet, 24-Parganas (South ). The respondent nos. 7 to 16 are the members of the said Panchayet. They by a letter dated 1. 12. 93 intimated the Prodhan for convening a meeting within the statutory period for passing a no-confidence motion against the Prodhan. Pursuant to the said letter the Prodhan by a notice dated 17. 12. 93 had convened a meeting at Panchayet Office on 22. 12. 93, after giving notice to all concerned. The notices were duly received. The [notice has been annexed to the writ petition and marked annexure "a". On 22. 12. 93 the requisition meeting was held and the Upa-Pradhan was in the chair. But none of the requisitionists turned up at the meeting. The meeting had to be adjourned sine die for want of quorum. The; copy of the resolution adopted at the meeting has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure "d". Thereafter, the Pradhan convened a meeting on 2. 4. 94 by a notice dated 27. 12. 94. A copy of the said notice is annexed and marked as Annexure "e" to the writ petition. On receipt of the notice dated 27. 12. 93, some of the requisitionists wrote to the Block Development Officer, Magrahat-I for his opinion about the validity of the notice dated 27. 12. 93. In reply, the Block development Officer by letter dated 31. 12. 93 intimated the respondent nos. , 7 and others that there was mo bar in calling such a meeting by the prodhan. The said letter dated 31. 12. 93 has been annexed with the petition and marked as Annexure "f". Thereafter, the Prodhan received on 6. 1. 94 a notice dated 29. 12. 93 issued by the respondent nos. 7 to 16 by which a requisition meeting was called on 12. 1. 94 for removal of the prodhan. A copy of the said notice dated 29. 12. 93 has been annexed with the writ petition and marked as Annexure "g". The contention of the prodhan is that the effect of the: notice dated 1. 12. 93 for convening a meeting for expressing 'no-confidence' against the Prodhan had come to an end on 22. 12. 93. Thereafter there was no scope for convening a requisition meeting by issuance of the notice dated 29. 12. 93, in furtherance of and treating the notice dated 1. 12. 93 as a valid one. The writ petitioner has come before this court for the following reliefs :-

(2.) IN the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 7 to 16 it has been stated that the total number of members of the Gram panchayet was at first 19 but subsequently one member became Saha sabhapati of Panchayet Samity and as such he would not remain as a member of the Gram Panchayet and accordingly the total number of members of the Gram Panchayet was reduced to 18. The writ petitioner was elected as Prodhan of the Gram Panchayet but subsequently she lost her majority and accordingly tike respondent nos. 8 to 16 wrote a letter to the writ petitioner dated 1st December, 1993 for convening a meeting as per sections. 12 and 16 of the W. B. Panchayet Act, 1973 for showing her majority. A copy of the said letter was also sent to the Block Development officer. All concerned received the notice in due time. After the receipt of the said notice made annexure 'k' to the affidavit-in-oposition, the writ petitioner by a memo dated 17th December, 1993 convened a meeting at the office of the Gram Panchayet on 22nd December, 1993 A copy of the said notice has been marked as Annexure "e" to the affidavit-in-opposition but the said notice was not in accordance with law since 7 days clear notice is essential for the purpose of holding any meeting of the Gram panchayet. The writ petitioner issued a notice for the purpose of discussion of certain routine matters of the Gram Panchayet on 4th January, 1994 at the Panchayet Officer. The respondent Nos. 8 to 16 after the receipt of the said notice wrote to the Block Development Officer stating therein that the notice dated 27th December, 1993 for the purpose of convening a meeting on 4th January, 1994 with different agenda excluding the agenda of 'no-confidence' motion was improper. The writ petitioner was also mentioned about the fact. But the Block Development Officer by his letter dated 31. 12. 93 marked Annexure "g" to the A/o informed the respondent nos. 8 to 16 that there was no bar in calling the meeting by the Prodhan. The respondent nos. 8 to 16 issued a notice dated 29th December. 1993 for holding a requisition meeting on 12th January, 1994 of the said Gram panchayet for removal of the writ petitioner from the post of Prodhan of the gram Panchayet and also served a fresh notice upon all the members as also the Block Development Officer. A copy of the said notice has been annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition and marked letter "h". Thereafter, the respondent nos. 8 to 16 wrote a letter to the Block Development Officer for sending an observer since the respondent nos. 8 to 16 were going to hold the, meeting for removal of the writ petitioner at the requisition meeting on 12th January, 1994. This letter has been marked Annexure "j" to the affidavit-in-opposition. An Observer came from the office of the concerned Block Development Officer and in that meeting it was resolved by 10 members of the Gram Panchayet that the writ petitioner did not have the majority for carrying on the activities as Prodhan of the Panchayet. A copy of the resolution was also forwarded to the Block Development Officer. According to the respondent nos. 8 to 16, the Prodhan has got no majority to remain as Prodhan in the Gram Panchayet and she should be removed at once.

(3.) IN the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the writ petitioner, it has been stated that she has been enjoying the support of the majority members of the Gram Panchayet. It has been stated that the respondent nos. 8 to 16 did not attend the meeting on 22. 12. 93 as they knew very well that they have no majority. They also avoided the meeting on 4. 1. 94 on the same ground. According to her, the notice dated 29. 12. 93 was issued by the requisitionists in furtherance of the notice dated 1. 12. 93 which had lost its force when the requisition meeting on 22. 12. 93 could not be held due to lack of quorum. Therefore, the notice issued by the requisitionists on 29. 12. 93 had become void.