Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sujata Bhachhar (Kirtonia) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 March, 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 2003 of 2016
with
CAN 11598 of 2016
Sujata Bhachhar (Kirtonia)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the appellant/applicant : Mr. Pradip Kumar Roy,
Ms. Shraboni Sarkar,
Mr. Joydeep Roy
For the State : Mr. Swapan Kr. Pal
For the private respondents : Mr. K. J. Tewari,
Mr. M. K. Das,
Mr. T. J. Tewari
Judgment on : 06.03.2017.
Biswanath Somadder, J. :
By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and is taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.
The appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 17th November, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. 25946 (W) of 2016 [Sujata Bhachhar (Kirtonia) Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.].
The appellant herein was the writ petitioner whose writ petition stood dismissed in terms of the impugned judgment and order.
When the appeal was taken up for consideration initially on 16th January, 2017, this Court had directed the Prescribed Authority and Block Development 2 Officer, Nakashipara, District - Nadia, to file a report in the form of an affidavit on or before the next date, stating therein specifically as to whether the allegations as sought to be made in the writ petition - wherefrom the impugned order emanated - had any basis or not. Consequently, a report in the form of an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Prescribed Authority, being the Block Development Officer, Nakashipara, District - Nadia.
It is noticed from the facts of the instant case that the writ petitioner was the Pradhan of Bethuadahari-II Gram Panchayat, situated in the district of Nadia. On 9th November, 2016, the Prescribed Authority received a letter dated 8th November, 2016, from one Sribas Saha and nine other members of the said Gram Panchayat, whereby all the said members had signed a motion in writing expressing their lack of confidence against the writ petitioner, Smt. Sujata Bhachhar (Kirtonia), being the Pradhan of Bethuadahari-II Gram Panchayat. While indicating their party affiliation in their requisition notice, they also submitted two postal receipts, copies of which were sent to the writ petitioner. On receipt of the requisition notice, the Prescribed Authority, upon satisfying himself that the motion sought to be brought by the requisitionists conformed to the requirement as specified under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act (as amended till date), specially convened a meeting of the Gram Panchayat in terms of his notice dated 10th November, 2016. Such meeting was scheduled to be held in the office of the said Gram Panchayat on 18th November, 2016 at 12.30 P.M. The Prescribed Authority, in accordance with the applicable provision of law, sent notice to the directly elected eighteen (18) 3 members at least before clear seven days from the date of holding such meeting. The meeting was held on a working day, which was not later than fifteen working days from receipt of requisition notice by the Prescribed Authority. The gist of the resolution and the Presiding Officer's report have been spelt-out in details in the report in the form of an affidavit filed on behalf of the Prescribed Authority. The same is quoted hereinbelow:
"Before commencement the said meeting on 18.11.2016 at 12- 30 PM, Md. Asraful Islam, Panchayat Accounts and Audit Officer of this block as Presiding Officer had ensured that the notice being this office memo no.2812(21), dated 10.11.2016 had been duly served to every members. Quorum of the said meeting established at time as ten members out of eighteen of directly elected members present and the said motion for removal of Smt. Sujata Bhachhar carried by the decision of the majority of its existing members. As per decision of the majority of its members, as Asraful Islam, Panchayat Accounts and Audit Officer of this block had declared that Smt. Sujata Bhachhar were hereby removed from the post of Prodhan of Bethuadahari-II Gram Panchayat on 18.11.2016.
Xerox copy of the resolution dated 18.11.2016 and report of the presiding officer of the meeting held on 18.11.2016 are annexed hereto and collectively marked as annexure R-1.
After receiving the report of Asraful Islam, Panchayat Accounts and Audit Officer and Presiding Officer of the said meeting, I had duly declared casual vacancy to the post of Prodhan of Bethuadahari-II Gram Panchayat and subsequently, I had specially convened a meeting by issuing a notice being this office Memo No.2922(20) dated 21.11.2016 for holding a meeting on 29.11.2016 and the said meeting 4 was held on 29.11.2016. As per decision of the majority of its members, Smt. Suparna Dutta were hereby elected to the post of Prodhan of Bethuadahari-II Gram Panchayat on 29.11.2016.
I crave leave to produce the necessary papers and documents and also the records relating to this case at the time of hearing, if necessary."
Against this factual backdrop, the writ petitioner approached the writ Court essentially challenging the requisition notice dated 8th November, 2016, which was received by the Prescribed Authority on the following day, i.e., 9th November, 2016. The following order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 17th November, 2016:-
"Let the affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
Heard Mr. Dalai, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the other learned Advocates have not been called to make any submission.
The writ petition is entirely based on certain backdoor information, as submitted by Mr. Dalai and some surmises based thereon. The point taken by the petitioner about the absurdity in issuing the notice upon satisfaction of the requirements of Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act is based on an information which the petitioner says to have collected privately from the office of the prescribed authority. Since this is an information not very properly obtained he has chosen to remain silent about it in the writ petition. However, that did not deter the petitioner to make a full- fledged argument based on a Judgement which says just the reverse. Mr. Dalai interpreted the Judgment in the case of Gopal Kumar - Vs. - State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2015 (1) CHN (Cal) 445 as an 5 authority on the proposition that the prescribed authority before issuing the notice of meeting on motion must record his satisfaction about the compliance of the requirement of Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act. Far from it. The Judgment says just the reverse. The petitioner could not prove that the prescribed authority acted contrary to the requirements of law. The other possibilities of compliance cannot be brushed aside and in the absence of any specific statement to the contrary the Court must not interfere with the steps taken by the prescribed authority. After all the presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act is in favour of such respondent.
I find no merit in the writ petition warranting any judicial interference.
There shall be no order as to costs."
Although from the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that several allegations have been made by the writ petitioner, particularly against the Prescribed Authority, in respect of the manner in which the said authority convened a meeting for her removal as Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat, it is palpably evident from the report in the form of an affidavit filed on behalf of the Prescribed Authority before us that the said authority acted within the framework of the applicable provision of law - in the instant case, section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act (as amended till date).
There is no manner of doubt whatsoever that the appellant/writ petitioner has been removed as the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat by a majority vote. The requisition notice issued by the members of the concerned Gram Panchayat was sought to be challenged by her before the writ Court. Even 6 though it is evident that the Prescribed Authority has acted in conformity with the provision of section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, the conduct of the appellant/writ petitioner leaves no manner of doubt whatsoever that instead of adhering to and abiding by the established democratic principles governing institutions such as a Gram Panchayat, she has chosen to try and wriggle out from a situation where, admittedly, she lacks support majority of the elected members of the Gram Panchayat, by nit-picking before a writ Court on such hypertechnicalities which are not at all germane for consideration or adjudication in the facts of the present case, in order to cling on to power, somehow. In this context, one may take notice of the observation made by this Court in a judgment rendered on 8th September, 2016, in FMA 1209 of 2015 with CAN 1814 of 2015 (Panchu Mandal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.).
That apart and in any event, upon perusal of the reasons provided by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, this Court does not notice any palpable infirmity or perversity, which would warrant any interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. As observed earlier, institutions such as Gram Panchayats run on established democratic principles. In democracy, all persons heading such public bodies can continue to hold office provided they enjoy the confidence of the persons who comprise of such bodies. This is the essence of the democratic republicanism. In this context, one may take notice of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usha Bharti v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC 1686.
7
It is, however, also necessary to observe at this stage that a public authority - who is obliged to perform his duties under a statute - is required to perform its duties in such a fair and transparent manner so that no person can raise either an eyebrow or point an accusatory finger at the said authority who is merely performing his statutory obligations. This is to be borne in mind by all those public authorities who are obliged to perform such statutory duties, particularly which directly affect the interest of those public institutions which run on democratic principles, such as institutions under the three tier Panchayati Raj system. Care should be taken by a public authority during the decision making process in order to ensure that there is no element of doubt created in the minds of those persons who are likely to be affected by the decision of the said public authority who merely performs his duties and obligations under a statute. In this context, one may take notice of the observations made by this Court in a judgment rendered on 6th December, 2016, in MAT 1868 of 2016 with CAN 10523 of 2016 (Shiladitya Halder Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.).
With the above observations, the appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of.
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.) 8 PP.