Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pd. ( Prabir Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & on 12 January, 2011
Author: Patherya
Bench: Patherya
1
8 12.1.11 W. P. No.17 (W) of 2011
S.L
pd. ( Prabir Ghosh -Vs- The State of West Bengal &
Ors.)
Mr. Asis Kr. Sanyal,
Mr. Pratip Kr. Chatterjee,
Mr. A.S. Chatterjee ... For the petitioners.
Mr. Chitta Ranjan Chakraborty,
Mr. Parvej Anam ... For respondent Nos.9-12, 16
& 17.
Mr. S. Dasgupta, Mr. Wasef Ali Mondal ... For State respondents.
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the meeting convened on 6th January, 2011.
The case of the petitioner is that by a Motion dated 22nd December, 2010, the requisitionists sought removal of the petitioner-Pradhan. Such Motion did not comply with Section 12(2) of the Amendment Act, 2010 and the Pradhan informed the Prescribed Authority of the same. A request was also made to cancel the said notice as the same was not issued in conformity with Section 12 of the Amendment Act, 2010. Instead of cancelling the said notice, the Prescribed Authority by its communication dated 27th December, 2010, sought to convene a meeting on 6th January, 2011. As the requisitionists have not indicated the party affiliation or independent status and submitted the Motion without the aforesaid, renders the notice bad so also the call of meeting on 6th January, 2011.
2Counsel for the State respondents submits that the Motion was signed by the requisitionists and delivered to the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, the Prescribed Authority was entitled to issue the notice dated 27th December, 2010.
Counsel for the requisitionists submits that the Motion submitted has been signed wherein a lack of confidence has been expressed against the Pradhan. Non- indication of the party affiliation is a technical mistake and therefore, no credence be given to it as the majority members seek removal of the Pradhan and in fact, at meeting held on 6th January, 2011, the majority members have removed the Pradhan. Therefore, the majority decision be upheld by ignoring the technical error.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, Section 12(2) of the Amendment Act, 2010 specifically provides that a Motion for removal of the Pradhan must be signed by 1/3rd of the existing members. This requisite had been complied with by the requisitionists. Such 1/3rd members are to indicate the party affiliation and thereafter, deliver the Motion to the Prescribed Authority in the manner indicated therein. Indication of party affiliation was not present under the 1973 Act but has been included herein with a purpose and intent in the Amendment Act of 2010. Therefore, compliance thereof cannot be termed as technical in nature. For non- indication of party affiliation in the Motion dated 22nd December, 2010, the said notice cannot be supported so 3 also the notice dated 27th December, 2010 issued by the Prescribed Authority.
Accordingly, the notices dated 22nd December, 2010 and 27th December, 2010 are set aside.
Another reason for setting aside the notice dated 27th December, 2010 is that the same has been issued without any application of mind. Notice under Section 12(3) of the Amendment Act, 2010, is to be issued after the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that all requirements of Section 12 (2) of the Amendment Act, 2010 has been complied with. It goes without saying that if the Prescribed Authority had satisfied himself the notice dated 27th December, 2010 would not have been issued.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed.
As no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, the allegation contained in the petition is not admitted.
Urgent Photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
( Patherya, J. ) 4