Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debasish Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 February, 2018
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
15.02.2018
b.r.
16
W.P. No. 29947(W) of 2016
Debasish Mondal
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Asish Sanyal,
Mr. Debasish Saha
Mr. Moniruzzaman
..... for the petitioner.
Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay,
Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal,
...... for the State.
Party/parties are represented in the order of their
name/names as printed above in the cause-title.
Mr. Sanyal, learned Senior Counsel, appears for the writ
petitioner and submits that the issue in this writ petition is the
notice of removal of the writ petitioner/Sahakari Savapati of
the Ketugram-II Panchayat Samity/the Samity in issue. Mr.
Sanyal submits that the notice of removal could not be served
upon the writ petitioner since, at the material point of time, the
petitioner was undergoing treatment on reference to the Katwa
S.D. Hospital, Katwa, Burdwan. Therefore, it is pointed out
that the notice under Section 101 of the West Bengal
2
Panchayat Act, 1973 cannot be given effect to since the
petitioner was prevented by bona fide circumstances from
accepting the notice.
Second, Mr. Sanyal argues that the notice is shown to
have been received by the father of the writ petitioner but, not
the writ petitioner himself. Therefore, the notice stands
voidable.
Third, Mr. Sanyal argues that assuming but not
admitting that the notice was correctly received on behalf of
the writ petitioner by his father, it is an accepted factual
position that the father of the writ petitioner resides at a
different address. Therefore, even accepting the eventuality of
service of notice upon his father, the writ petitioner could not
have been the recipient and, therefore, taken steps at the
meeting ultimately held on the 16th of December, 2016 to
consider his removal.
Mr. Sanyal makes a final argument that the notice of an
ordinary meeting of the Samity has been called on the 21st of
February, 2018 when, the writ petitioner shall be entitled to
3
present the budgetary allocation/income and expenditure
statement on behalf of the said Samity.
In the event the petitioner is removed from office now,
the pending meeting on the 21st of February, 2018 shall be
rendered infructuous.
Appearing on behalf of the State/Respondents, Mr.
Chattopadhyay, learned Counsel relies upon the Affidavit-in- Opposition on behalf of the Respondent No.4, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Katwa, Burdwan. It is argued by Mr. Chattopadhyay that the notices were received by the Members of the said Samity and, also received by the father of the writ petitioner.
The writ petitioner did not file any representation before the Samity complaining of his difficulty in attending the meeting in view of his medical condition.
The father of the writ petitioner No.1, Jagannath Mondal, did not place any reason while acknowledging receipt of the notice to the effect that the receipt of the notice is objected to in view of the circumstances as sought to be raised by Mr. Sanyal in Court today.
4
Therefore, Mr. Chattopadhyay submits, that having regard to the authority of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Re:
AST 687/06 (Naru Gopal Chakraborty & Ors. -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.).
the said respondents are prevented from giving effect to democratic process culminating in the meeting dated 16th of December, 2016 and, the result of the meeting cannot be given effect without obtaining the leave of the Court.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court finds adequate reason not to disagree with submissions advanced by learned State Counsel. This Court finds that the notice was received by the father of the writ petitioner who did not object or, placed any observations with regard to the purported non-availability of the writ petitioner. The petitioner neither filed any representation objecting to the meeting dated 16th December, 2016 on the grounds as sought to be raised by Mr. Sanyal. From the facts as now enumerated above, this Court finds that there is no infraction of the procedure mandated under Section 101 of the 1973 Act.
WP No. 29947(W) of 2016 stands accordingly dismissed.5
Interim order stands vacated.
Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.)