RABANMAHATO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case can be disposed of on a very short point.

(2.) It is claimed that some members of the Dimdiha Gram Panchayat under Purulia-I, Development Block, called upon the petitioner No. 1, who at the relevant time, was the Prodhan of the said Gram Panchayat, to convene a meeting for his removal. Actually, the removal of the Upa Pradhan the respondent No. 2 was also sought, but since it is stated that the petitioner No. 2 has since died, this petition is not being prosecuted on her behalf. Because the petitioner No. 1 is alleged not to have called the meeting, the requisitionists themselves called the meeting in terms of S. 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. This meeting called by the requsitionists was fixed for 6/04/1994. It is claimed that it was attended by 13 members of the Gram Panchayat and that the motion for the removal of the Gram Panchayat i.e. the Petitioner No. 1 was carried out because the 13 members present in the meeting voted in favour of the motion.

(3.) The holding of the meeting on 6/04/1994 and the carrying out of the motion for removal of the petitioner No. 1 has been assailed by the petitioner on a number of grounds. One of such ground is the absence of the observer by the prescribed authority in the said meeting. Reliance is sought upon 3rd proviso to S. 16(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. This proviso reads as under :