Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sujata Bhachhar (Kirtonia) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 November, 2016
1
W. P. No. 25946 (W) of 2016
Sujata Bhachhar (Kirtonia)
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Alokesh Dalai,
Mr. Mohit Gupta.
...for the Petitioner.
Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Bidhan Biswas.
...for the State Respondents.
Mr. Kumarjyoti Tewari, Mr. Tarunjyoti Tewari, Mr. Manas Kumar Das, Ms. Rajlakshmi Ghatak.
...for the Respondents Nos. 6 to 15.
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 Judgment which says just the reverse. Mr. Dalai interpreted the Judgment in the case of 2 Gopal Kumar -Vs.- State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2015 (1) CHN (Cal) 445 as an 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.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on the usual undertakings.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.)