Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)

Ujjal Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal on 23 April, 2013

In my opinion, the decision of Ujjal Mondal (supra) applies. Even if the allegations are not as serious as misappropriation or misconduct, incapacity or incompetence of a political leader to perform works in the locality which has cause disillusionment, unhappiness and suffering to the people in the locality are allegations which can be viewed with seriousness. The future prospects of the pradhan might be jeopardized. He will also not get a chance to explain his conduct. Thus, the requisition notice and subsequent notice are set aside for the reasons stated hereinabove."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 4 - Cited by 70 - N Patherya - Full Document

Gopal Kumar & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 December, 2014

18. Section 12(1) of the said Act makes it clear that the Pradhan may, at any time be removed from his office by the majority of the existing members of the gram panchayat, expressing their lack of confidence against the Pradhan or recording their decision to remove the Pradhan at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. Section 12(2) provides that for the purpose of removal of Pradhan, one third of the existing members referred to in the subsection (1) of Section 12 subject to minimum of three, shall sign a motion in writing expressing their lack of confidence against the Pradhan or recording their intention to remove the Pradhan. Section 12(3) provides that the prescribed authority on receipt of the motion shall satisfy himself whether the requirements under sub-section (2) of Section 12 had been met and on his satisfaction, shall specially convene a meeting by issuing a notice within five working days from the receipt of the motion. The meeting shall be held in the office of the gram panchayat. The date and hour of the meeting shall be fixed in the said notice and at least seven clear days time would have to be given to each of the existing members for consideration of the motion and for taking a decision on it. In this case, the law prescribes that a minimum of three members can bring a motion indicating their lack of confidence in the Pradhan. Section 12(1) provides that the removal has to be made by majority. A harmonious construction of section 12(1) and 12(2) of 11 the said Act would show that the Pradhan can be removed by a majority of the members of the gram panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and such meeting shall be held pursuant to a requisition brought by one third of the members of the gram panchayat which shall be not less than three members, indicating their intention to remove the Pradhan or their lack of confidence. The following conditions must be complied with and the prescribed authority must be satisfied of the same: [Gopal Kumar & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors reported in (2015) 1 CHN 445 (DB)]
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 10 - Cited by 17 - A Banerjee - Full Document
1