RAM JIBAN MAHATO Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been preferred challenging inter alia a memo no. 1272/G.P. dated 5th September, 2018 and a memo no. 1275(2)/G.P. dated 5th September, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3. Records reveal that an interim order was passed by this Court on 27th September, 2018 restraining the respondents from giving effect or further effect to the said memoranda. The private respondents in the writ petition preferred an appeal against the order dated 27th September, 2018. Upon contested hearing the appeal was dismissed and the interim order was extended.

(2.) Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that a meeting to elect the Sabhapati and Sahakari Sabhapati of Barabazar Panchayat Samiti (in short, the said panchayat samiti) was notified by the respondent no.5 as per the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975 (for short the 1975 Rules) to be held on the 5th September, 2018. The petitioner along with the respondent no.5 received an equal number of votes. Therefore, a lottery was held amongst the two contestants and the petitioner emerged as the winner. The petitioner was elected as the Sabhapati and such election attained finality through issuance of Form.7 signed by the Presiding Officer on 5th September, 2018. In a most illegal and arbitrary manner such election was sought to be nullified by the respondent no.3 vide memo no.1275(2)/G.P. dated 5th September, 2018. The respondent no.3 had no jurisdiction to declare such election as null and void. The said memo was preceded by a memo no.1270/G.P. of the same date issued by the respondent no.3 to the respondent no.6 directing him to abstain from holding the first meeting of the said panchayat samiti.

(3.) Drawing the attention of this Court to the contents of the resolution dated 5th September, 2018, Mr. Chatterjee submits that there is no recording that at the time of election of the petitioner as the Sabhapati there was any disturbance whatsoever. The election was held on 5th September, 2018. The direction upon the respondent no.6 to abstain from holding the first meeting and the direction to treat the said election as null and void were issued on the same date, i.e., on 5th September, 2018. Such contemporaneous communication does not satisfy the test of reasonability moreso when it would be evident from the records that the complaint lodged by the private respondents was received in the office of the respondent no.3 on 6th September, 2018.