Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 602
High Court Of Calcutta
Before: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.
NARU GOPAL CHAKRABORTY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 18167 (W) Of 2006
Decided On : 09/15/2006
Service of notice upon the Executive Assistant of the Gram Panchayat amounts to service upon the Pradhan, as per the notification dated 14th September 2002.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL PANCHAYAT ACT - SECTION 16 - SERVICE OF NOTICE ON PRADHAN - SERVICE ON EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT OF GRAM PANCHAYAT - VALID SERVICE - REMOVAL OF PRADHAN - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose regarding the removal of the Pradhan of the Debipur Gram Panchayat. Fifteen members of the Gram Panchayat sought to remove the Pradhan by passing a resolution in a meeting held on 21st March 2006. The Pradhan challenged the removal, claiming that he was not served with proper notice of the meeting. The prescribed authority initially removed the Pradhan but later recalled the order based on the opinion of the Government Pleader.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the service of notice dated 22nd February 2006 upon the Executive Assistant of the Gram Panchayat amounted to service upon the Pradhan, as per the notification dated 14th September 2002. The court further held that the Pradhan did not convene any meeting pursuant to the said notice, and hence the requisitionists called the said meeting vide the notice dated 13th March 2006, which was admittedly received by the Pradhan on 15th March 2006. The meeting was held on the said date, and a resolution for removal was adopted by fifteen members out of twenty-one in the presence of the observer deputed by the prescribed authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the service of notice dated 22nd February 2006 upon the Executive Assistant of the Gram Panchayat amounted to service upon the Pradhan. 2. Whether the Pradhan was properly served with notice of the meeting held on 21st March 2006.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the notification dated 14th September 2002, which stated that receipt by the Pradhan himself also includes receipt by the office of the Pradhan, i.e., Gram Panchayat Office. The court held that the service of the notice addressed to the Pradhan, which was received by the Executive Assistant of the Gram Panchayat, amounted to service upon the Pradhan. The court also held that Section 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, does not mention any specific mode for service of such notice upon the Pradhan, and the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 1981 also does not specify any specific mode for service of such notice upon the Pradhan.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order passed by the prescribed authority and allowed the writ petition by approving the legality of the resolution adopted by the majority members for the removal of the said Pradhan.
( 1 ) FIFTEEN members of the Debipur Gram panchayat out of twenty-one members, by their notice dated 22nd february, 2006 requested the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat to convene a meeting for transacting an agenda for removal of the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat.
( 2 ) IN spite of best efforts, the said notice could not be served upon the Pradhan directly though repeated attempts were made to serve the said notice upon the Pradhan by registered post. Ultimately the said notice was served upon the office of the Gram Panchayat on 23rd february, 2006.
( 3 ) SINCE no meeting was convened by the Pradhan for the aforesaid purpose, the requisitionists themselves, by their notice dated 13th march, 2006, called a meeting to be held at the office of the Gram panchayat on 21st March, 2006 for the said purpose.
( 4 ) THE Pradhan was intimated about the said meeting by notice dated 13th March, 2006 issued by the requisitionists which was admittedly received by the Pradhan on 15th March, 2006.
( 5 ) A meeting, in fact, was held on 21st March, 2006 as per schedule, in the presence of observer deputed by the prescribed authority and in the said meeting a resolution was adopted by fifteen members out of twenty one for removal of the Pradhan.
( 6 ) THE said resolution together with the other relevant documents were subsequently forwarded to the prescribed authority, who on receipt of the report of the said observer passed an order on 29th May, 2006 by removing the said Pradhan with immediate effect.
( 7 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, on the 7th July, 2006 the prescribed authority recalled the said order of the removal of the Pradhan on the basis of an opinion given by the Government Pleader of the district.
( 8 ) THE said order passed by the prescribed authority on 7th June, 2006 was challenged by the said fifteen requisitionists by filing a writ petition being W. P. No. 8599 (W) of 2006 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 11 th July, 2006 with a direction upon the prescribed authority to take an ultimate decision on the resolution of the majority members regarding removal of Pradhan after taking into consideration the allegation of the Pradhan regarding non service of notice dated 22nd February, 2006 upon him as complained of in his complaint dated 15th March, 2006 submitted before the prescribed authority.
( 9 ) THE prescribed authority was also directed to consider the effect of service of notice upon the Executive Assistant on 23rd February, 2006 in the light of the notification dated 14th September, 2002 which was relied upon by the petitioner in support of his claim that the service upon the office of the Gram Panchayat amounts to the service upon the Pradhan.
( 10 ) THE entire dispute now boils down to a single issue regarding the effect of service of notice dated 22nd February, 2006 upon the executive Assistant of the said Gram Panchayat. If it is ultimately held that such service amounts to service upon the Pradhan then the plea of non-service of notice taken by the Pradhan will be completely demolished. If on the other hand it is held that such service does not amount to service upon the Pradhan then the plea of non-service of such notice taken by the Pradhan will be proved.
( 11 ) THUS, the entire dispute is required to be resolved with reference to the notification dated 14th September, 2005. The said notification, however, was not taken into consideration by the prescribed authority though he was directed by this Court to consider the effect to the said notification at the time of taking the ultimate decision on the resolution of removal of the Pradhan.
( 12 ) SINCE the said notification has a great impact on the dispute at issue, let me set out the relevant parts of the said notification hereunder:
(i) the statutory period of fifteen days or thirty-five days (in case of holding requisitioned meeting on notice issued by the requisitionists members) shall be counted fro
