Sections 12 and 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, do not contemplate removal of the Pradhan and the Upa-Pradhan in one meeting and that two separate meetings are required to be held for the said purpose.

( 1 ) IN this writ application the petitioners have, challenged a notice dated 25th January, 1994 issued by some of the members of Hamirhati Gram Panchayat, District Bankura, giving notice that a meeting of the Gram Panchayat would be held on 4th February, 1994 for the purpose of ascertaining confidence of the members against the Pradhan as also the Upa-Pradhan. It appears that when the matter was initially moved on 21st February, 1994, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo as regards possession for a period of two days and thereafter, the interim order was directed to continue till 25th February, 1994. In the meantime, it appears that pursuant to the resolution adopted at the meeting on 4th February, 1994 the Prodhan and Upa-Prodhan were sought to be removed from their respective offices and the charge of the office of the Prodhan was assumed by Smt. Chhanda Konar, respondent No. 11 herein.

( 2 ) PURSUANT to the above, an application for further interim orders was filed on behalf of the petitioners and the parties were restrained from holding any meeting in respect of the election of the Prodhan.

( 3 ) THE writ application is being taken up for hearing at this stage.

( 4 ) APPEARING in support of the writ petition Mr. Q. E. Kabir, learned Advocate, submitted that the notice of the meeting to be held on 4th February, 1994, was itself bad since sections 12 and 16 did not contemplate removal and/or ascertaining loss of confidence of both Prodhan and Upaprodhan in one meeting. Mr. Kabir further submitted that the agenda in the impugned notice clearly. mention that the meeting was to be held for the purpose of ascertaining the confidence of the members and not for their removal and, accordingly the resolution said to have been adopted at the meeting on 4th February, 1994, removing both the Prodhan and Upa-Prodhan was bad. In support of his contention Mr. Kabir referred to a well-known decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Soleman Shah and Ors. v. Director of Panchayat, Burdwan and Ors. reported in 70 CWN page 1088, wherein His Lordship was pleased to observe that removal and loss of confidence were two different concepts and that it would be dangerous to equate loss of confidence or lack of confidence with removal. Mr. Kabir also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Royhan and Ors. v. Chamatkar Maltiya and Ors. reported in 89 CWN ,page 1044. The Division Bench observed that the decision of Soleman Shah's case (supra) was good law on the subject.

( 5 ) MR. Kabir submitted that having regard to the above since notice of the requisition meeting was itself invalid in the eye of law, any resolution taken at the said meeting and any steps taken on the basis of such resolution must also be held to be void and invalid.

( 6 ) APPEARING on behalf of the private respondents, who are some of the other members of the Gram Panchayat, Mr. Chitta Ranjan Bag, learned Advocate, submitted that the notice could not be said to be invalid merely because the word removal had not been mentioned therein, since removal followed as a consequence of loss of confidnce. Mr. Bag submitted that in any event, since the Prodhan and the Upa-Prodhan had already been removed and charge had been assumed in respect of the post of Prodhan by Suit. Chhanda Konar, the writ application had been rendered infructuous and no relief could be given to the petitioners herein.

( 7 ) MR. Bag relied on a portion of paragraph 10 of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Royhan and Ors. (supra) wherein their Lordships observed that since the Prodhan had already been removed, the casual vacancy could be filled in under the provisions of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules 1975. In this regard, Mr. Bag referred to Rule 6 (1) of the above Rules.

( 8 ) APPEARING for the State and the State Respondents Mr. Apurba Lal Basu, learned Advocate, submitted in the same vein