Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rafikul Islam & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 September, 2016
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
15.09.2016
(PP)
M.A.T. 1595 of 2016
with
CAN 8801 of 2016
Rafikul Islam & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay,
Ms. Snigdha Saha,
Mr. Souvik Dutta
....for the appellants.
Mr. Srijan Nayak,
Mr. Shibendu Narayan Sukul,
Mr. Shovon Banerjee,
Mr. Arindam Mitra
....for the respondent nos.5.
Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.
By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and is taken up for consideration along with the connected application.
The appeal and application for stay arise out of an order dated 10th August, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge. The order, in its entirety, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Let the affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.2
The petitioner alleges that the notice of his removal by the requisitionists did not contain the party affiliations. In spite of it, the prescribed authority, i.e. the respondent no. 3 had issued a notice of meeting on motion for removal of the Pradhan convening a meeting of the Gram Panchayat to be held on August 2, 2016. I have been informed that the meting has already been held as well. Mr. Gupta, the learned Additional Advocate General in his usual fairness did not try to defend an indefensible situation. The lacuna in the notice of removal appears on the face of it is loud and clear. Mr. Gupta never tried to justify the notice issued by the respondent no. 3 on such defective notice.
Mr. Gupta does not unnecessarily enhance the longevity of the writ petition by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. The writ petition is disposed of by declaring the notice of removal to be defective and the subsequent steps taken by the respondent no. 3 to be not in consonance with the provisions of law. The notice of meeting on motion is hereby set aside. Consequently the respondent no. 3 shall not give any effect or further effect to the result of the meeting held on August 2, 2016.
The petitioner is given liberty to communicate the order to the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 3 shall act on such communication."
The reasons given by the learned Single Judge are cogent enough and there is no palpable infirmity noticed in the said order, which would warrant any interference by the Court of Appeal. 3
The appeal and the application are, therefore, liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.) (Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.)