Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Ac Krishna Gopal Das & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 March, 2012

Author: Harish Tandon

Bench: Harish Tandon

                                           1


Sl/   26.3.12                   W.P. 5906 (W) of 2012
11
ac                                       Krishna Gopal Das & Ors
                                                    -vs-
                                              State of West Bengal & Ors

                Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty
                Mr. Abhijit Basu                  ... For Petitioners

                Mr. Sadananda Ganguly
                Mr. Sovan Sengupta                ... For Respondents No. 1,

2, 6, 7 and 8 Mr. Soumen Kumar Dutta ... For Respondent No. 9 Mr. Kanailal Samanta ... For Respondents No. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 Vakalatnama filed today on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 be kept with the record.

The petitioners have assailed the notice dated 15th March 2012 issued by the Teacher-in-Charge, respondent no. 9, for convening a meeting by the members of the reconstituted Managing Committee on March 26, 2012.

According to the petitioners, nomination under the category of Panchayat nominee can be done only by a Panchayat Samity. The Sabhapati, in his personal or individual capacity, cannot send nomination.

Learned Advocate, appearing for the Teacher- in-Charge, respondent no. 9, places before this Court Memo No. 828 dated March 23, 2012, which was received by him after issuance of the aforesaid notice dated March 15, 2012 whereby and whereunder it is intimated by the Block Development Officer, Khejuri-I Development Block 2 that the Panchayat Nominee cannot be arranged due to non functioning of the Panchayat Samity owing to political turmoil since June-2009.

Let xerox copy of the said memo be kept with the record.

Rule 10(4) of the Management Rules provides that if any category of members of the Committee remains un-represented, there shall be no bar to the constitution or the reconstitution of the Committee provided the Execution Committee accords necessary permission.

Prima facie this Court finds that there is no absolute bar in reconstituting the Committee in absence of the Panchayat Nominee under Rule 10(4) but the same can be done if the provisions contained in the said Rule is adhered to.

The petitioner could not show that such reconstitution is being undertaken obtaining necessary permission from the Executive Committee. Therefore, at this stage, such disputed questions cannot be determined unless the parties file their affidavits.

Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within three weeks from date and reply, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.

Let this matter be listed after four weeks ' For Final Disposal'.

It is hereby made clear that there shall be no impediment on the part of the Board to proceed in determining the dispute in terms of the order dated November 15, 2011 passed in W.P. 16712 (W) of 2011 during pendency of the instant writ petitioner.

3

(Harish Tandon, J.)