The notice by which a requisitioned meeting was convened for transacting the business on the agenda of removal of Pradhan is valid even in the absence of service of notice by the requisite number of members upon the Pradhan requesting him to call a meeting for the same purpose.

( 1 ) SIX members of Rosulpur Gram Panchayat out of 12 members, by their notice dated 25th July, 2006 requested the Pradhan of the concerned Gram panchayat to convene a meeting for transacting the business on the agenda regarding "no Confidence" against the Pradhan. Since the Pradhan, in spite of receipt of the said notice, did not convene the said meeting within the period prescribed under Section 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, the said six members, by their notice dated 11th August, 2006, convened a meeting to be held on 21st August, 2006 for transacting the business regarding the agenda of removal of Pradhan.

( 2 ) THE validity and /or legality of the said notice is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat.

( 3 ) MR. Ali, learned senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the said Act does not contemplate any proceeding to be transacted on the agenda regarding "no Confidence" against the Pradhan. Mr. Ali further submitted that the notice being annexure 'p-1' to this writ petition which was issued for calling a meeting on the agenda of "no Confidence" cannot be regarded as a notice for holding a meeting for transacting the business on the agenda of removal of the Pradhan.

( 4 ) MR. Ali further submitted that Section 16 of the said Act provides that the Pradhan when required in writing by 1/3rd of the members of a Gram panchayat, subject to a minimum of three members, has to call a meeting for removal of the Pradhan, shall do so fixing the date and hour for the meeting to be held within 15 days after giving intimation to the prescribed authority and seven days' notice to the members of the Gram Panchayat, failing which the members aforesaid may call a meeting to be held within 35 days after giving intimation to the prescribed authority and 7 days' notice to the radhan and other members of the Gram Panchayat.

( 5 ) BY referring to the said provision, Mr. Ali submitted that unless a request in writing as contemplated in Section 16 of the said Act, is made by the requisite number of members, the Pradhan is not required to convene any meeting for discussing the agenda of removal of Pradhan.

( 6 ) MR. Ali referred to the following decisions of this Hon'ble Court to support his contention that the request to hold a meeting on the agenda of "no confidence" and the notice to call a meeting on the agenda of removal of Pradhan are not synonymous :- (i) Soleman Shah v. Director of Panchayat reported in 70 Cal WN 1088 (ii) Kitabuddin Seikh v. Daud Hossain reported in (1995) 1 Cal LJ198. (iii) Dabir Mondalv. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in (2000)2 cal HN 695.

( 7 ) RELYING upon the said decisions, Mr. Ali submitted that since the petitioner was never called upon to call a meeting for discussing the agenda regarding removal of Pradhan, the petitioner had no obligation to call a meeting for discussing the said agenda in terms of the second proviso to Section 16 of the said Act.

( 8 ) MR. Ali further argued that the right to call a meeting for the said purpose by the requisitionists matures only when the Pradhan, after receiving a request in writing from 1/3rd of the total members of the Gram Panchayat to convene a meeting for discussing the agenda of removal of Pradhan, fails to call a meeting for the said purpose within 15 days from the date of receipt of such request from the said members.

( 9 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Ali, since no such request was ever made to the pradhan, the right to requisition a meeting by the requisitionists did not mature at all due to non-fulfilment of the statutory requirement and as such the notice, by which the meeting was requisitioned, is absolutely illegal and as such, the same cannot be given effect to.

( 10 ) SUCH contention of Mr. Ali was strongly opposed by Mrs. Mutsuddi who relying upon one unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in F. M. A. T. No. 2141 of 1995 submitted that