Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Raj Narayan Manna vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 August, 2021
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
S/L 18
11.08.2021
Court. No. 19
GB
W.P.A. 12500 of 2021
Raj Narayan Manna
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Through Video Conference)
Mr. K. Bhattacharya,
Mr. S. Acharya,
Mr. Sanjib Das.
... for the Petitioner.
Mr. Amalesh Ray.
... for Private Respondents.
Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Mr. Ziaul Haque.
... for the State.
The writ petition has been filed challenging a notice dated August 3, 2021 by which the prescribed authority has fixed August 12, 2021 as the date for holding the meeting for removal of the Pradhan of Vivekananda Gram Panchayat, Purba Medinipur. The petitioner is the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat.
The petitioner alleges that the notice of requisition was not served upon the petitioner. The petitioner further alleges that the satisfaction of the prescribed authority was not in accordance with Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.
The contention of the petitioner is that the requisition was brought on July 30, 2021 by the respondent nos.5 to 18, expressing their intention to remove the Pradhan as the 2 requisitionists had lost confidence in the Pradhan because of the ineligibility of the Pradhan. Further allegations levelled against the Pradhan are as follows:
1. Misbehaviour with the local people in the Gram Panchayat area.
2. Insubordination, misbehaviour with the Government officials.
3. Procurement of tenders in the name of his wife and continuing a business of material supplier and building contractor in the name of his wife and father-in-law.
Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Ujjal Mondal vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2013 (1) CHN (CAL) and Sourendra Nath Das vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. passed in WPA 11903 of 2021.
According to Mr. Ray, learned advocate, who appears on behalf of the requisitionists, the intention to remove was sufficient in the requisition notice. Thus, it is submitted on behalf of the requisitionists that the provisions of Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 clearly allows such kind of a requisition when the only requirement was an intention to remove the Pradhan on account of loss of confidence. He submits that the other portions of the requisition are redundant and neither the prescribed authority nor the Court can take cognizance of such statement.
3
In the matter of Ujjal Mondal (supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that the requisition notice/no confidence motion was entertainable only when there was no foundation for bringing the motion. The relevant portion is quoted below:
"24. Having regard to section 101 of the said Act, we are of the view that a 'no confidence motion' is entertainable for removal of Prodhan where there should not be any ground or foundation of bringing 'no confidence motion' and if 'no confidence motion' is carried on that ground, it will invite civil consequence or evil consequence to the Office Bearers relating to his political career naturally and as such, natural justice principle will have play in the matter, thereby a breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
Mr. Mahata, learned advocate, submits that the notice is not stigmatic as such. He distinguishes the decision of Ujjal Mondal (supra) on the ground that in Ujjal Mondal (supra), the allegations were more serious. According to him, in this case the allegations are not stigmatic. Mr. Mahata refers to a decision of a Division Bench of this court in the matter of Ujjwal Kumar Singha Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2017) 2 CHN 258 (DB). In the said decision the court observed that in an institution which runs on democratic principles, a person can continue to be its head so long he/she enjoys the confidence of the persons who comprised such a body. According to Mr. Mahata, one of the challenges before the Division Bench was that the requisition notice carried a 4 stigma but the Division Bench did not set aside the requisition.
Having perused the judgment of the Division Bench in Ujjwal Kumar Singha (supra), I do not find that the Division Bench decided the point as to whether the requisition which carries some allegation against the Pradhan could be entertained. It appears that there was a challenge to the no confidence motion on the ground that the same was carrying allegations, but the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had dealt with the issues and had dismissed the writ petition with reasons. However, there is no observations as to whether the requisition, even if, it contained any allegation or stigma, could be entertained contrary to what was decided in Ujjal Mondal (supra). This court in the matter Sourendra Nath Das v. The State of West Bengal & ors. in WPA 11903 of 2021 held as follows:
"Having considered the submissions made by the petitioner and the learned advocates for the prescribed authority, this court is of the opinion that a reading of the requisition notice (which is in bengali), as a whole, would indicate that in the opinion of the members, the pradhan has proved to be incompetent as he did not perform his duties and developmental works, causing deprivation to the people of the locality from the benefits all governmental projects, and thus the members had lost confidence in their leader and wanted his removal.
The effect of such a requisition is that the pradhan being incompetent to perform his duties had caused suffering to the people and would be consequently removed as the members lost confidence on account of such non-performance. The pradhan has a career. If the requisition is allowed to stand, it would be a reflection of his inability and incompetence in performing his duties as a leader of the gram panchayat. This is the foundation of the requisition. The 'no confidence' is based on the 5 allegation of incompetence and inability of the pradhan and the suffering caused to the people in the locality due to such incompetence. This is not a simple requisition for removal of the pradhan. The removal if carried through in the meeting will carry a stigma that the pradhan was removed as he failed to perform his duties and developmental works.
In my opinion, the decision of Ujjal Mondal (supra) applies. Even if the allegations are not as serious as misappropriation or misconduct, incapacity or incompetence of a political leader to perform works in the locality which has cause disillusionment, unhappiness and suffering to the people in the locality are allegations which can be viewed with seriousness. The future prospects of the pradhan might be jeopardized. He will also not get a chance to explain his conduct. Thus, the requisition notice and subsequent notice are set aside for the reasons stated hereinabove."
Another interim decision of a Division Bench has been placed by the respondents, in the matter of Prasanta Mitra Vs. The State of West Bengal passed in MAT 1086 of 2019. Having perused the interim order, this court is of the opinion that the consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench was not with regard to any stigma or allegation in the requisition notice.
Having considered the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that the issue before the Hon'ble Division Bench with regard to the removal of the Pradhan was similar to the one raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. As soon as there is an allegation of mis-behaviour, corruption, non- cooperation vested interest, the same become stigmatic. The Pradhan is a politically appointed representative of the people and any allegations of such nature may have a 6 negative effect on his future prospects or on his credibility as a member of the Panchayat as well.
Thus, having considered the requisition notice as a whole it indicates that the ground for removal of the Pradhan is not only lack of confidence but the lack of confidence is based on serious allegations.
Thus, in my view, with due respect to the submissions made by the learned advocates of the requisitionists, the requisition cannot be sustained in law only on the ground that there are some allegations against the Pradhan.
In my opinion, the provision for removing an elected representative such as the Pradhan is of fundamental importance to ensure the democratic functioning of the institution as well as to ensure the transparency and accountability in the functions performed by the elected representatives. These institutions must run on democratic principles. In democracy all persons heading public bodies can continue provided they enjoy the confidence of the persons who comprise such bodies. This is the essence of democratic republicanism.
Under such circumstances, the requisition as also the notice dated August 3, 2021 are set aside and quashed. This matter is entertained solely for the reasons indicated hereinabove. The Court has indicated in various orders that any attempt on the part of either the Pradhan or the prescribed authority to stall a meeting would be a direct 7 curtailment of the democratic right of the requisitionists and the same shall not be permitted in any form.
Such meetings which are required for proper functioning of offices have not been barred by the Government. The Government offices have resumed functioning. There are no further Covid restrictions in holding such meetings.
The requisitionists are granted liberty to bring a fresh requisition under Section 12(2) of the said Act. If such requisition is brought, the prescribed authority shall act and proceed in terms of the provisions of Sections 12(3) and 12(4) onwards of the said Act. The bar under Section 12(11) of the said Act shall not be applicable. The time frame prescribed by the statute shall be adhered to.
It is further made clear that the prescribed authority shall be entitled to seek police protection and if such request is made, the police authority shall render all support to the requisitionists as also to the prescribed authority without any delay and laches. It is also made clear that if the Pradhan tries to evade service of requisition then the requisitionists shall be entitled to serve the same in his office through his secretary or assistant and if, such service is not accepted, then the requisitionists will be entitled to paste the same at the office of the Pradhan in addition to sending the same by registered post to the residence of the Pradhan.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. 8 All the parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)