The court cannot prevent a meeting for the removal of a Pradhan merely because a process for removal of the disqualified members under Section 11 is initiated. The prescribed authority should decide the question of removal of the members as early as possible, preferably within six weeks with an outer limit of 3 months.

( 1 ) THE first writ petition was moved by one Sunil Sardar, a member of the Panchayat challenging the meeting requisitioned by the private respondents for removal of the Pradhan on the ground that 3 of the requisitionists were disqualified u/s. 11 (e) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and a resolution having been taken to that effect the same was forwarded to the prescribed authority for appropriate action. Therefore, the said 3 persons were disqualified from requisitioning the meeting. As such the notice for holding the meeting should be quashed.

( 2 ) IN the said writ petition an interim order was granted that the meeting may be held the result may be published and the same may be given effect to. Subsequently, the second writ petition (A. S. T. 4087 of 2000) was moved by one Jahide Seikh who is also a member of the said Panchayat. It is almost the same relief that was asked for in the second writ petition as was asked for in the first writ petition and almost on indentical ground. Therefore, both these writ petitions are taken up in terms of order dated 21st November, 2000.

( 3 ) MR. Bihani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in his submission has pointed out that in case the prescribed authority for some reason or other deals the process in removing the disqualified persons in that event such members in order to seek prevention of such removal may remove the Pradhan as has been done in the present case and thereby frustrate the whole democratic process. In as much as once a Pradhan is removed even if the newly elected Pradhan loses his majority still then a minority group will be at the helm of affairs frustrating the number of majority roll in a democratic set up. Therefore, according to him, it was incumbent on the prescribed authority to take immediate steps for removal of the said members as soon as they had incurred disqualification and should not have allowed the respodents to hold the meeting for removal of Prodhan. Alternatively, he contends that the decision u/s. 11 should have been taken by the prescribed authority before such meeting is concluded, otherwise this will erode the whole democratic system and create dead-stock in the administration and bring unwarranted consequences in the whole process in terms of S. 11 and pass appropriate order before the meeting is held and in case it is not so done in that event, the meeting may be postponed till such decision is taken.

( 4 ) MR. Dasgupta, the learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the Prodhan himself has not vindicate his right. On the other hand, two individual members had come separately to support the Prodhan. He contends that until a member is removed he has every right to continue as a member and exercise his democratic right and participate in the meeting. Mere initiation of a proceeding u/s. 11 does not preclued a member from exercising his right as a member until an order is passed and such order is not stayed and does not become final. The order would operate only when it becomes final or if is not stayed by the appellate authority the order becomes operative subject to the result of the appeal. He also contends that in the present case, the prescribed authority may be directed to dispose of the process at the earliest but non-disposal thereof does not stand in the way of holding a meeting for removing a Prodhan. 4a. THE learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, contends that the meeting has already been held. He, however, adopts the submissions of Mr. Dasgupta and submits that the democratic process can not be interfered with even if the submission of Mr. Bihani may be very attractive. Law has to follow its own course and unless there is infraction in law on even if the consequences are disastrous the Court can not intervene.

( 5 ) I have heard all the learned counsel at length.

( 6 ) SECTION 11 prescribed removal of a member on any of the grounds contained in clauses (a) to