NARU GOPAL CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the order dated 8th August, 2006 whereby the learned Judge passed an interim order directing status quo in respect of the situation in Debipur Gram Panchayat as regards the continuation of its Prodhan in office. Shortly stated, without going into the controversy the Prodhan was served with a notice for holding a meeting to pass a vote of no-confidence. The case of the appellants is that he was served with a notice dated 22nd February, 2006 and was requested to hold a meeting. Another notice dated 13th March, 2006 was sought to be served on him on 15th March, 2006. He was informed that the meeting was fixed on 21st March, 2006 since he had failed to hold the meeting as per requisition dated 22nd February, 2006. On 17th March, 2006 the Prodhan, Mr. Pradip Saha came before this Court by way of a writ petition being W.P. 5865(W) of 2006. However, this Court did not grant the stay and permitted the meeting to go on.

(2.) Accordingly, the meeting was held and it is the case of the appellants that fifteen out of twenty-one members voted in favour of the no-confidence vote. Thus, the no-confidence motion was allegedly passed by the brute majority. This was reported under section 16 by the Observer to the Block Development Officer who also passed an order on 29th May, 2006 accepting the passing of the no-confidence motion. However, it seems that the said order dated 29th May, 2006 accepting the passing of the no-confidence motion was recalled by the Block Development Officer at the behest of the opinion expressed by the Government Pleader and he passed the recall order on 7th June, 2006.

(3.) That was challenged by the fifteen Councillors and ultimately the two writ petitions being W. P. No. 5865(W) of 2006, filed by the Prodhan and W. P. No. 8599(W) of 2006, filed by the fifteen Councilors came to be disposed of by the learned Judge by his common order dated llth July, 2006 wherein the learned Judge took a view that the said Block Development Officer should decide the whole controversy, firstly, regarding as to whether there was any proper service effected for the purpose of holding the meeting and, secondly, whether the no-confidence motion was properly passed or not. It seems that thereafter, an order was passed by Block Development Officer holding that there was no proper service on Prodhan of the requisition and, therefore, no effect could be given to the resolution passed of no-confidence motion in the meeting dated 22th February, 2006.