The provision of giving seven clear days' notice as mentioned in the second proviso to section 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act is a directory provision and not a mandatory one.

( 1 ) THIS mandamus appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ petitioner and is directed against an order dated July 24, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to filing of the writ application out of which the present mandamus appeal arises may be epitomised thus.

( 3 ) THE appellant was the Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat. On June 1, 2007, several members of the Panchayat issued a notice asking him to convene a meeting for discussion on the issue of "no confidence" and his consequent removal from the office of the Pradhan. The appellant did not summon a meeting in response to such notice within 15 days in terms of the requirement of the West bengal Panchayat Act. In view of such refusal on the part of the appellant, the requisitionists called a meeting on June 29, 2007, vide the notice dated June 21, 2007 for holding the same in the office of the Gram Panchayat at 11. 30a. m. The grievance of the appellant was that he was not served with any notice of the aforesaid meeting due to be held on June 29, 2007 and accordingly, on June 27, 2007, he came up with the writ application thereby praying for restraining the requisitionists from holding any meeting on June 29, 2007.

( 4 ) BY an ex parte order dated June 28, 2007, a learned Single Judge of this court, after entertaining the application, passed an interim order to this effect that the requisitionists were at liberty to hold that meeting but the decision arrived at in such meeting should not be given effect to without the leave of the court.

( 5 ) ON the returnable date, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the private-respondents placed before the learned Single Judge two envelopes sent under registered post with acknowledgement due, one addressed to the writ petitioner in his personal name and the other, sent to him in his official capacity. It appeared that both the previously mentioned envelopes had come back to the sender with the postal endorsement "not claimed". According to the learned advocate for the respondents, those envelopes contained the notice date June 21, 2007 for holding the meeting on June 29, 2007 but the writ petitioner was deliberately avoiding the service of such notice by not claiming such notice.

( 6 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contention advanced by the learned Advocate for the private-respondent before the learned Single Judge and contended that in the absence of any proof of tender of such envelope to the writ petitioner, the postal endorsement "not claimed" did not amount to a good service. According to the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner, in the absence of clear seven days' notice as provided in second proviso to section 16 of the West Bengal panchayat Act, which is mandatory in nature, the holding of the meeting on june 29, 2007 was illegal and consequently, the decision taken in that meeting for removal of the writ petitioner should be quashed and not to be given effect.

( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge, however, accepted the contention of the learned advocate for the private respondents and held that there was due compliance of the provision contained in the second proviso to section 16 of the West Bengal panchayat Act, read with the relevant rules framed thereunder for service of such notice and accordingly dismissed the writ application.

( 8 ) BEING dissatisfied, the writ petitioner has come up with the present mandamus appeal before this Court.

( 9 ) MR. Basu, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has reiterated his submission made before the learned Single Judge and has contended that the mandate of the provisions contained in section 16 of the Act read with Rules 5 and 6 of the Gram Panchayat Administration Rules framed thereunder having been violated, it was a fit case fo