The requisitionists can convene a meeting under the third part of the second proviso to section 16(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 with the specific agenda for removal of the Prodhan or Upa Prodhan, as the case may be, if the Prodhan failed to call a meeting under the second part of the said proviso.

P. K. SAMANTA, J.

( 1 ) A question that was decided by the learned single Judge in a case reported in 99 CWN, 427 (Menoka Halder and Others v. State and Ors.) requires answer afresh by the Division Bench of this Court for the reasons stated hereinafter.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the question which arises out of the facts of this case must necessarily be stated. The writ petitioner is the Prodhan of Mitrapur Gram Panchayat. This Gram Panchayat has in all 18 members divided in two groups of different political parties. It is not in dispute that 1/3rd of the members of the said Gram Panchayat by a letter dated 27th of April, 2000 requested the writ petitioner, Prodhan, for convening a meeting as per section 12 read with section 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 for consideration of a resolution of no confidence against the Prodhan. It is also in dispute that the writ petitioner pursuant to the said requisition notice dated 27th April, 2000 did not call a meeting in compliance with the second proviso to section 16 of the said Act within the time prescribed therein. Consequently, the requisitionsts by a notice dated 20. 5. 2000 convened a meeting on 30. 5. 2000 for passing a resolution for removal of the Prodhan at Panchayat Office after giving notice to all concerned. In the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the 10 members of the said Gram Panchayat, namely the respondent Nos. 7 to 16 it was stated that one Mr. Samsul Huda, a Relief Inspector of the office of the prescribed authority was sent as an observer by the prescribed authority at the requisition meeting dated 30. 5. 2000. It was further stated that in presence of the said observer 10 members of the Gram Panchayat took an unanimous decision to remove the writ petitioner from the post of Prodhan of the said Gram Panchayat. It further appears from the records of this case that the prescribed authority upon consideration of the report of the observer of the said meeting exercised his power under Clause (a) of sub section 8 of secion 9 of the said Act by removing the writ petitioner from his post of Prodhan and further directed him to hand over cash, assets, documents registers and seals which he had in his possession, custody or control to Smt. Usha Mal, the existing Up-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, by issuing an order dated 2. 6. 2000 to the above effect. The prescribed authority further pursuant to the provisions of Rule 6 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975 issued a notice dated 6th June, 2000 for a meeting of the said Gram Panchayat on 28th June, 2000 to be held at Gram Panchayat office at 11 A. M. for election of the Prodhan of the said Gram Panchayat. In this writ petition the question having been raised that the requisition meeting dated 30. 5. 2000 with the agenda for removal of Prodhan was not permissible under the law as the requisitionists themselves by their notice dated 27th April, 2000, requisitioned for a meeting for consideration of a resolution of no confidence against the Proddhan, an order for stay of operation of the resolution dated 30th May, 2000 was passed pending disposal of the writ petition.

( 3 ) IT may stated that in the writ petition though it was alleged that 7 days clear notice of the aforesaid requisition meeting dated 30. 5. 2000 was not given to the members of the Gram Panchayat, that some members because of their absence in three consequitive meetings of the Gram Panchayat and some others becaues of their failure to make payment of their dues to the Panchayat were liable to be disqualified as members of the said Gram Panchayat and were not entitled to vote in the said requisition meeting yet then participated in the said meeting, but such allegations were not pressed at the hearing of this writ petition. Only argument advanced in this case is that in view of the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in the above noted case, there could not have been an agenda for removal of the Prodhan in the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document