SK KAUSAR ALI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, a short question as to whether the District Magistrate would include Additional District Magistrate, being a prescribed authority within the meaning of section 2(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, falls for consideration.

(2.) In view of the question involved in this appeal, it is not necessary to deal with the fact of the matter in great details, suffice it to say that certain allegations of misappropriation of money, criminal breach of trust, gross negligence of duty etc., had been made against the appellant. Enquiries were made in relation to the aforementioned allegations in terms of an order passed by the Assistant Director of Panchayat, whereafter a notice to show cause was served upon the appellant as to why he shall not be removed from the post of Pradhan of Paranpur Gram Panchayat. In the said proceedings, an order of suspension was passed. As against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate, Malda. An interim order of stay was granted therein. The District Magistrate also directed him to appear on 16.12.96 for hearing of the appeal. The said appeal, however, was heard by the Additional District Magistrate, Malda, on 3.1.97, and the Additional District Magistrate affirmed the order of suspension. Questioning the said order, a writ petition was filed by the appellant. A learned Judge of this court, by reason of the impugned order, dismissed the said application inter alia, holding that in view of the definition of 'District Magistrate' as contained in section 2(5) of the Act, the order impugned in the writ application is valid in law. The said decision is since reported in CLT 1997(2) HC 308.

(3.) Mr. Ganguly appearing on behalf of the appellant, apart from adverting to the questions raised by the learned trial Judge, has also sought to raise various questions raised in the writ application and further has sought leave to file an application for grant of leave to amend the writ petition questioning vires of section 213B of the said Act. Keeping in view the fact that the said contention has not been raised in the writ application, we have not granted leave to the appellant to amend the writ application and the memo of appeal.