Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ujjwal Kumar Singha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 January, 2017
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
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 2052 of 2016
with
CAN 12447 of 2016
Ujjwal Kumar Singha
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the appellant/applicant: Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya
Mr. Anindya Bose
Mr. Chandrachur Chatterjee
For the State: Mr. Sadhan Kumar Halder
Mr. Abdus Salam
For the respondent nos. 8
to 14 & 17 to 20: Mr. Mr. P.S. Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.
Md. Sabir Ahmed
Mr. Abdur Rakib
Mr. Arunava Maiti
Judgment on: 18th January, 2017.
Biswanath Somadder, J.
By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing by treating the same as on day's list along with the application for stay. 2
The appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the writ Court on 18th November, 2016, in WP 25053 (W) of 2016 (Ujjawal Kumar Singha vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.).
The writ petitioner is now the appellant before us. It appears that the writ petitioner had approached the writ Court challenging a fresh notice of his removal as the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat which was issued by the requisitionists on 19th November, 2016, pursuant to the observations made by this Court as contained in the judgment and order dated 19th September, 2016, in a previous appeal, being MAT 1543 of 2016 with CAN 8571 of 2016, which was preferred by the appellant herein against an order dated 5th August, 2016, passed by the writ Court in an earlier writ petition filed by him. Apart from the notice dated 19th October, 2016, the subsequent step taken by the Prescribed Authority was also made the subject-matter of the writ petition wherefrom the impugned order dated 18th November, 2016, emanates. The appellant herein challenged the action of the respondents exclusively on three grounds which have been set out by the learned Single Judge in page 2 of the impugned judgment and order dated 18th November, 2016. The same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"Mr. Bhattacharya has challenged the action of the respondents exclusively on three grounds. First, the notice is stigmatic in nature; secondly, the notice is bad in law as it does not express lack of confidence against the Pradhan; and thirdly, from the notice issued by the prescribed authority it is not clear for what purpose the meeting had been convened as he had failed to strike off the inapplicable words in the notice issued by him."3
The learned Single Judge dealt with the matter extensively and in details and came to a conclusion that the writ petition had absolutely no merit and the same was required to be dismissed in limine and the matter was accordingly dismissed.
The entire impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent reasons and there is no palpable infirmity noticed therein which would warrant any interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. It appears that the appellant/writ petitioner resorted to taking shelter under the high prerogative jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only for the purpose of thwarting the well-established democratic principles which govern the running of public institutions such as a Gram Panchayat, being at the lowest tier of self-governance at the village level in the three-tier Panchayati Raj System. In this context, one may take notice of the observations made by this Court in Farida Bibi vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2016 (5) CHN (Cal) 258, while following the observations made by the Supreme Court in Usha Bharti vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC 1686, wherein it was observed to the effect that it is the fundamental right of democracy that those who have been elected can also be removed by expressing, 'No Confidence Motion' for the elected person. 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. This is the essence of democratic republicanism which was taken note of by the Supreme Court in Usha Bharti (supra).
4
The appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed along with the application for stay with exemplary costs assessed at 500 G.Ms. which shall be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority for being earmarked for utilisation by the Mediation and Conciliation Committee of the High Court.
Let this matter appear next Wednesday (25.01.2017) only for the purpose of ensuring compliance of payment of costs in terms of this order.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.) I agree.
(Sankar Acharyya, J.) pg .