PARAMANANDA MAHATO Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been made by seven petitioners who are the elected members of Radhanagar Gram panchayat. The respondent Nos. 8 to 14 are also the elected members of the said Gram Panchayat. thus in all there are 14 members of the said Radhangar Gram Panchayat. The Respondent No. 8, Isan Mahato was elected as the Prodhan and the petitioner No. 1 was elected as the Upa-Pradhan of the said Radhanagar Gram Panchayat.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1, the Upa-Prodhan of the said Gram Panchayat convened a requisition meeting on 10th March, 1984 for considering a resolution of no confidence against the Prodhan. The meeting to consider the said no-confidence motion was held on 10th March, 1984 and all the fourteen members were present. The resolution of no-confidence was moved. Seven votes were cast in favour of the resolution and seven votes against the resolution. The total votes having been equally divided, the Upa. Prodhan the petitioner no. l utilised a second vote in favour of the resolution. After the resolution was passed in the manner aforesaid a copy of the resolution was sent to the Block Development Officer and Prescribed authority, Jhargram Block, Midnapore for his approval. The Block development Officer and Prescribed Authority, the Respondent No. 5, by a notice dated 10th April, 1984 intimated the petitioner no. 1 that under the provisions of section 12 of the West Bengal panchayat Act,1973, the Prodhan can be removed by a resolution carried by majority of the existing members of the Gram Panchayat and according to Rule 13 the voting should have been taken by secret vote. It is also stated therein that the no-confidence was not carried by the majority of the existing members. In the said letter it was further observed as follows:-

(3.) THE said Memo dated 10th April, 1984 of the Block Development officer and Prescribed Authority has been challenged in this application on the ground that the resolution was passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 (4) of the Act and the direction contained in the said Memo is contrary to the provisions of the said Act. Upon the said application an interim order was passed on 17th April, 1984 directing that no. further effect should be given to the said impugned memo dated 10th April, 1984 and the respondent No. 8, the Pradhan was restrained from acting as a Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayet. The said interim order was initially for a period of three weeks. Thereafter, on 25th June, 1984 the rule was issued and interim order granted on 12th April, 1984 was directed to be continued till the disposal of the Rule.