Sujata Bhachhar (Kirtonia) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 March, 2017
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.