Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Taslima Khatun vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 January, 2017
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswanath Somadder
And
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sankar Acharyya
MAT 1974 of 2016
with
CAN 11727 of 2016
Taslima Khatun
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the appellant/applicant: Mr. Abhijit Basu
Mr. Samir Kumar Ghosh
Judgment on: 9th January, 2017.
Biswanath Somadder, J.
Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. In spite of service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondents even at the time of second call.
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20th September, 2016, passed by the writ Court in WP 19584 (W) of 2016 (Taslima Khatun vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). The appellant herein was the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment and order is set out hereinbelow in its entirety:-
"The petitioner was the Pradhan of the Bokhara-II Gram Panchayat in the district of Murshidabad. She has been removed from her post by the majority members pursuant to the notice of removal issued by the requisitionists. She challenges her removal on the ground that she was not an elected Pradhan of the concerned gram panchayat but was appointed from the reserved category. Therefore, she contends, Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act has no application to her case.
I have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and considered the case and I do not find any merit in it. The petitioner was definitely elected to the post of Pradhan which will be evident from the copy of the resolution dated August 17, 2013 taken at the very first meeting of the gram panchayat. The post may be reserved for OBC and Women candidates but there was an election. Maybe she was elected uncontested but nonetheless she was elected. Section 9 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act makes no provision for anybody to hold the post of a Pradhan other than through election. Once a person is so elected to the post of Pradhan he is to be removed in accordance with the provision laid down in Section 12 of the said Act. Moreover Sections 11 and 12 of the said Act uses the word only Pradhan without making any exception to Pradhans elected from different categories. Once a person is elected to the post of Pradhan he becomes a Pradhan and Section 12 of the said Act applies to him as it applies to any other Pradhan.
As such I find no impropriety in the action taken by the respondents.
The writ petition is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis."
Even a bare perusal of the order reveals that the same is supported with cogent reasons and there is no palpable infirmity noticed in the said order which would warrant an interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal.
As such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed along with the connected application, being CAN 11727 of 2016.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.) I agree.
(Sankar Acharyya, J.) pg .