Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)

Naru Gopal Chakraborty And Ors. vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 15 September, 2006

A fact which has been brought to the notice of this Court during the course of hearing that in the meanwhile the petitioner no.1 has already been removed from the post of Pradhan in the meeting held on 29th November, 2011, is also a clear indication of a transparent democratic process being in operation. As observed by the Division Bench of this Court in Naru Gopal Chakraborty & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (supra), it must be remembered that in a democratic process there is no scope for allowing a person who has lost confidence to continue even for a minute after the resolution had taken place.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - J Bhattacharya - Full Document

Manju Bala Singh Patar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 November, 2011

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent nos. 7 to 12 submitted that the impugned notice dated 17th November, 2011, was issued by the prescribed authority upon reaching due satisfaction in terms of sub-section (3) of section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. In order to reach such satisfaction, all that the prescribed authority was required to do was to take into consideration whether the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 12 had been substantially complied with. Learned counsel submitted that although the notice dated 11th November, 2011, did not indicate the party affiliation of the signatories, that defect was removed in the subsequent notice dated 15th November, 2011. In any event, non-indication of party affiliation would not have rendered the notice dated 11th November, 2011, bad in law. Relying on a recent unreported judgment of this Court rendered in W. P. 17499 (W) of 2011 (Manju Bala Singh Patar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) on 2nd November, 2011, he submitted that the object of introducing section 12 sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) in the statute was only to ensure that a motion of no confidence for removal of a Pradhan or an Upa-Pradhan was brought about and executed 4 through a transparent democratic process which would ensure elimination of any clandestine design being evolved to oust either of them.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - B Somadder - Full Document
1