RENUKA HANSDA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner questions the legality of a proceeding undertaken for her removal from the post of 'Pradhan' of Jagdala Gram Panchayat in the district of Malda. The requisition notice expressing loss of confidence in her, by which the prescribed authority was requested to convene a meeting for her removal was issued on 29th August, 2014. The Gram Panchayat has fifteen members in total, and seven members had signed the requisition notice. The prescribed authority convened the meeting by issuing a notice on that very date and the meeting was scheduled to be held on 16th September, 2014. On 15th September, 2014, an interim order was passed in this writ petition permitting holding of the meeting and the respondents were given liberty to take stop gap measures in accordance with law on the basis of the outcome of the meeting but they were restrained from proceeding further on the basis of the resolution which was to be adopted in the scheduled meeting. This interim order was initially directed to subsist till 22nd September, 2014 but has subsequently been extended from time to time. Mr. Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner questioned the validity of the said two notices, the first one being the requisition notice, a copy of which has been made annexure P to the writ petition, and the second one being the notice issued by the prescribed authority convening the meeting, the copy of which has been made annexure P-1 to the writ petition.

(2.) The impugned notices are assailed on three grounds at the time of hearing of the writ petition. The first ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that in a single notice the requisitionist members could not ask for convening a meeting for loss of confidence and also removal of the Pradhan. On this point, Mr. Banerjee has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Rati Kanta Giri v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (98 CWN 989). His further submission is that the prescribed authority acted in this matter in undue haste, first on the aspect of satisfying himself as regards compliance of the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 12 of the Panchayat Act, 1973 and on issuing the notice convening the meeting on the same day the authority had received the requisition notice, being 29th August, 2014. The third ground on which the impugned notices are sought to be invalidated is that the requisition notice involved is a barren notice, disclosing no reason as to why the requisitionist members have lost confidence in the Pradhan. Corollary argument is advanced as regards the requisition notice and it has been submitted that there cannot be a requisition meeting for confidence of the members having been lost in the past in respect on an office-bearer. Loss of confidence, according the petitioner must relate to situation prevailing at the point of time of issue of the requisition notice, but not in relation to events occurring at the distant past.

(3.) For considering the submissions of Mr. Banerjee, it would be necessary to refer to the text of the requisition notice issued by the seven members of the concerned Gram Panchayat. The requisition notice reads: