Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Maisura Begam vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 January, 2026
2026:CHC-AS:101
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury
WPA 486 of 2026
Maisura Begam
versus
The State of West Bengal & ors.
For the petitioners : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta
Mr. Bikram Banerjee
Mr. Arindam Shit
Mr. Baibhav Roy
For the State : Mr. Wasim Ahmed
Mr. Harun Al Rashid
Heard on : 21.01.2026.
Judgment on : 21.01.2026
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):
1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the show cause notice dated 26th November, 2025 and the order dated 19th December, 2025 whereby the Governor has been pleased to declare that the Board of Councillors of the Jangipur Municipality is incompetent to exercise statutory functions imposed on it by powers conferred under Sub-Section (2) of Section 431 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") and has consequentially dissolved the Board of Councillors. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the subsequent order dated 19th 2 WPA 486 of 2026 2026:CHC-AS:101 December, 2025 issued by the Governor in exercise of powers under Section 431(3) of the said Act whereby the Governor has been pleased to appoint the sub Divisional Officer, Jangipur as Administrator with immediate effect for a period not exceeding 6 months or until a newly elected Board of Councillors takes over charge, whichever is earlier.
2. The petitioner claims to be an elected councillor of ward No. 3 of Jangipur Municipality who had been elected pursuant to the elections held in the year 2022.
3. According to the petitioner all on a sudden a show-cause was issued on 26th November, 2025, by invoking the powers under Section 431(1) of the said Act. Though a response was filed dealing with the points noted in the show-cause, the order dated 19th December, 2025 was passed thereby dissolving the Board of Councillors, and an administrator was also appointed to take charge of the affairs of the municipality.
4. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing in support of the petition has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 430 and 431 of the said Act and would submit that the aforesaid exercise of powers by the State is not in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
5. By placing before this Court, Section 430 of the said Act, he has submitted that the State can exercise certain powers, in the event, the State is of the view that the Board of Councillors had made 3 WPA 486 of 2026 2026:CHC-AS:101 default in performance of duties and in such event, it is the duty of the State to offer opportunity to the Board to remedy the breach by fixing a period for due performance of such duty by the Board. In the instant case, no such opportunity was provided.
6. By drawing the attention of this Court to the show-cause notice dated 26th November, 2025, it is submitted that the Government issued the show-cause notice based on a mass petition dated 20th November, 2025. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, though it was incumbent upon the State Government to disclose the mass petition dated 20th November, 2025 based on which the above show-cause notice was issued, the said document was not disclosed in the show-cause. This apart by placing before this Court the provisions of Section 431(1) of the said Act, it is submitted that the State Government did not, in the instant case, form an opinion for initiating proceeding under Section 431(1) of the said Act, and in absence of formation of such opinion, no proceedings under Section 431(1) of the said Act could have been initiated.
7. It is submitted that though, the Board had responded to the above show-cause by a notice in writing dated 1st December, 2025, the response given by the Board was not adhered to, and without considering the same the order impugned dated 19th December, 2025 was passed.
8. By placing the above order, it is submitted that though an enquiry report received from the District Magistrate, Murshidabad dated 4 WPA 486 of 2026 2026:CHC-AS:101 16th December, 2025 was considered by the State while passing the order impugned, such enquiry report was not disclosed to the petitioner. The aforesaid would constitute violation of the principles of natural justice, apart from the statutory violations as indicated hereinabove.
9. It is submitted that the order dated 19th December, 2025 dissolving the Board cannot be sustained. The subsequent order dated 19th December, 2025 appointing the administration is conditional upon the dissolution of the Board. Since the prior order cannot be sustained, the subsequent order also cannot be sustained.
10. Mr. Ahmed, learned advocate appears for the State and has placed before this Court the Resolution adopted by the Board of Councillors of Jangipur Municipality dated 1st December, 2025. According to him, from the aforesaid Board Resolution, it would be apparent and clear that there had been violation in adherence of statutory duty, as the fault has been admitted by the Board.
11. In the light of the above, it cannot be said that the action of the State was wrong. While responding to a query from the Court, he has submitted that the formation of opinion of the State to initiate proceeding under Section 431(1) of the said Act stands substantiated by the admission of the Board in its aforesaid resolution dated 1st December, 2025.
12. Further by drawing attention of this Court to the order impugned, it is submitted that admittedly in this case, on the basis 5 WPA 486 of 2026 2026:CHC-AS:101 of the enquiry made by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad as is reflected in its report dated 16th December, 2025, the allegations made in mass petition which were noted in the show-cause stood substantiated. According to him, the Board was put on notice of the allegations based on which the notice was issued. The reply to the show-cause was duly considered and following the above, the order impugned was passed. There is no irregularity in the order impugned. As such no interference is called for
13. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that admittedly, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had been elected as a Councillor under Jangipur Municipality in the District of Murshidabad pursuant to the elections held in the year 2022. It is also not disputed that the Board of Councillors was in place prior to passing of the order dated 19th December, 2025. I find from the records that based on the mass petition dated 20th November, 2025, which is yet to see the light of the day, a show- cause notice dated 26th November, 2025 was issued under the provisions of Section 431 of the said Act. In this context, it may be noted that Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner has attacked the aforesaid notice on the ground that the same has not been issued in consonance with the provisions of Section 431 of the said Act. To morefully appreciate the above, the relevant provisions of Section 431 of the said Act are extracted herein below:
6
WPA 486 of 2026 2026:CHC-AS:101 "431. Power of the State Government to intervene in case of gross neglect or serious irregularity.--(1) If, in the opinion of the State Government, the Board of Councillors has shown gross neglect in the performance of the duties imposed upon it by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, or has committed serious irregularities in the performance of such duties, the State Government may by order direct the Board of Councillors to show cause within the period specified in the order why it shall not be dissolved on grounds of charges mentioned in this order.
(2) If the Board of Councillors fails to answer the charges within the period specified in the order or within such further time as may be allowed by the State Government, or if the answers do not convince the State Government, or where more than two-thirds of the total number of Councillors holding office for the time being have, for any reason, resigned, the State Government may dissolve the Board of Councillors by an order published in the Official Gazatta with effect from the date of the order. (3) When the order of dissolution has been passed, all the powers and functions vested upon the municipal authorities under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, shall be exercised by such person or persons to be designated as Administrator or Board of Administrators as the State Government may appoint for the purpose.
(4) A general election to the Municipality shall be held within six months of its dissolution for the constitution of a new Board of Councillors immediately thereafter:
Provided that the new Board of Councillors shall continue only for the remainder of the period of which the dissolved 7 WPA 486 of 2026 2026:CHC-AS:101 Municipality would have continued had it not been so dissolved:
Provided further that when the period for which the Board of Councillors would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any elections for constituting a new Board of Councillors for such period. [(5) Omitted.] [(6) Omitted.] (7) If any question arises as to what constitutes a gross neglect or a serious irregularity under this section, the opinion of the State Government as recorded in writing in the order, under this section shall be final and conclusive and the same shall not be questioned in any court of law."
14. As would appear from the above order, ordinarily, the power under Section 430 of the said Act is exercised in case of default committed by the Board of Councillors. However, the power under Section 431 of the said Act is more drastic. In the instant case, since, the State has initiated the proceedings directly under Section 431 of the said Act, this Court has examined the said provision in detail.
15. As is apparent from a plain reading of the provision, such a provision can be invoked only when the State Government is of the opinion that the Board of Councillors has shown gross neglect in the performance of its duties as imposed upon it by the statute. However, to invoke such provision, the State Government has to, at the first instance, form a prima facie opinion that the Board of Councillors has shown gross neglect in performance of duties. It is 8 WPA 486 of 2026 2026:CHC-AS:101 the formation of such opinion of the State Government which is a sine qua non for initiation of proceeding by issuance a show-cause under Section 431(1) of the said Act.
16. A perusal of the show-cause dated 26th November, 2025 would, however, demonstrate that following the mass complaint as regards the disruption of municipal services, which have been identified therein, the above show-cause was issued.
17. The said show-cause notice does not, however, identify formation of any prima facie opinion. As is important to note that in the instant case I find that it is the contention of the learned advocate for the respondents that the formation of opinion of the State is substantiated by the response dated 1st December, 2025 which also includes a resolution of even date. Incidentally, such resolution has been adapted subsequent to the issuance of the show-cause. Having regard thereto, going by the submissions made by the learned advocate for the State, it cannot be said that the state Government had formed any prima facie opinion under Section 431(1) of the said Act, for issuance of the show-cause notice. Be that as it may, independent of the above, I have also considered the show cause notice, the response thereto, and the order impugned.
18. From the aforesaid, it would transpire that the irregular cleansing of municipal roads, irregular clearing of drainage and accumulation of garbage due to lack of proper waste disposal by the municipality and the non availability of permanent dumping ground 9 WPA 486 of 2026 2026:CHC-AS:101 has been made the main grounds for issuing the said show cause notice. This apart, inability in performance of duties and to provide basic amenities as mentioned above have also been made grounds for gross neglect in performance of duties of the Board of Councillors. I find that the aforesaid show-cause was responded to by the Board of Councillors.
19. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has also argued that the foundation of show-cause notice being the mass petition having not been disclosed, the same in effect vitiates the entire proceeding.
20. A perusal of the aforesaid order impugned would, however, demonstrate that the Government while considering the show-cause notice and the response thereto, had also relied on an enquiry report received from the District Magistrate, Murshidabad dated 16th December, 2025 which report was also incidentally, not supplied to the petitioner.
21. Based on the aforesaid report received from the District Magistrate, Murshidabad, the Governor had recorded in the order impugned in the following terms:
"AND WHEREAS the enquiry report received from the District Magistrate, Murshidabad mentioned in above reveals that the report substantiates the complaints against Jangipur Municipality regarding inadequacies in the provision of basic municipal services."10
WPA 486 of 2026 2026:CHC-AS:101
22. Thus, it is clear from the above that the aforesaid report also formed the basis for taking a decision for dissolving the Board of Councillors. The decision was thus, based on materials which were neither disclosed, not supplied. In absence of disclosure of the aforesaid material, the Board of Councillors did not get appropriate opportunity to respond and to defend. When the report of the District Magistrate dated 16th December, 2025 was considered by the State, it was the duty of the State to supply the copy of the report, for the Board for Councillors to appropriately respond to the same, especially when the decision to dissolve the Board of Councillors was based on the above report. Admittedly, in this case, the same had not been done. Having regard thereto, I am of the view that in the instant case, there has been violation of principles of natural justice. The order thus, stands vitiated on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.
23. Having regard thereto, the order dated 19th December, 2025 passed by the Governor in exercise of power under Section 431(2) of the said Act, dissolving the Board cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.
24. Consequentially, the order dated 19th December, 2025 appointing Sub-Divisional Officer, Jangipur as Administrator with immediate effect, also cannot be sustained and the same is also accordingly set aside. All consequences shall follow.
11
WPA 486 of 2026 2026:CHC-AS:101
25. Since, the order impugned has been set aside on technical ground, the above order shall not stand in the way of the State from initiating appropriate proceedings on the self-same cause of action in accordance with law, if so advised.
26. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) Sayandeep A.R. (Court)