Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mojammel Haque & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 28 October, 2014
Author: Debasish Kargupta
Bench: Debasish Kargupta
1
28.10.2014.
S.D.
W.P. No. 27693 (W) of 2014
Mojammel Haque & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Subir Sanyal
Mr. Sutirtha Das
...For the Petitioners.
None appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 in spite of
service of copies of this writ application upon them. No accommodation is prayed for. Let affidavit of service filed be kept on record. It further appears from the aforesaid affidavit of service that the respondent nos. 7 to 17 refused to accept the notices together with copies of this writ application upon them. Let the returned unopened envelopes be also kept on record.
This writ application is directed against a motion initiated for removal of the petitioner no. 6 from the office of Pradhan of No. 3, Bhagwangola Gram Panchayat, District - Murshidabad, dated September 1, 2014, notice of meeting on motion dated September 8, 2014 for removal 2 of the petitioner from the office of Pradhan of the above Gram Panchayat as also resolution dated September 16, 2014 adopted in the meeting of the above Gram Panchayat for removal of the petitioner no. 6 from the office under reference.
According to the petitioners, a true copy of the motion was served on September 11, 2014 upon the petitioner no. 6 by the respondent no. 4 on the basis of a representation. It further appears from the materials on record that the above motion was served subsequently upon the petitioner by 12 members of the above Gram Panchayat out of 20 members of the above Gram Panchayat.
After considering the aforesaid materials (at pages 27 to 30 of this writ application), I find that in the above motions, the names of the affiliated parties of the requitionists were not mentioned. For considering the propriety of the above materials, the provision of Sub‐Section (2) of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 are required to be taken into consideration and those are quoted below:‐ "(2) For the purpose of removal of the Pradhan or the Upa‐ Pradhan, one‐third of the existing members referred to in sub‐ section (1) subject to a minimum of three members shall sign a motion in writing expressing their lack of confidence against the Pradhan or the Upa‐Pradhan or recording their intention to remove the Pradhan or the Upa‐Pradhan, indicating party affiliation or independent status of each of such members and either deliver the motion in person through any of the members 3 or sent it by registered post to the prescribed authority; one copy of the motion shall be delivered to the concerned office bearer either by hand or by registered post at the Gram panchayat office and another copy shall be sent by registered post at his residential address."
(Emphasis Supplied.) After considering the aforesaid provision, I find that the mentioning of the names of affiliated parties in a motion is a statutory condition in accordance with the above provisions. Admittedly, that has not been complied with.
Necessary to mention that in absence of the respondents before this Court at the time of hearing in spite of service of notices upon them, the allegations made against them remain uncontroverted. In view of the above, the impugned actions cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, the motion dated September 1, 2014 initiated by the requitionists (respondents nos. 7 to 17), the impugned notice of meeting on motion dated September 8, 2014 for removal of the petitioner no. 6 from the office of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat under reference issued by the respondent no. 4 as also the resolution dated September 16, 2014 adopted in the meeting of the above Gram Panchayat for removal of the petitioner no. 6 from the office of Pradhan of the above Gram Panchayat are quashed and set aside.
There will, however, be no order as to costs.
4Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
( Debasish Kar Gupta, J. )