Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Satyabrata Sinha, J.
Samarendra Goswami
Versus
The Dabuk Gram Panchayat and others
C.O. No. 17390 (W) of 1994
Decided On : December 23, 1994
PANCHAYAT ACT - SECTION 16(1) - REMOVAL OF PRADHAN - NOTICE PERIOD - INTERPRETATION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - WEST BENGAL PANCHAYAT ACT, 1973.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, challenged notices issued for a meeting to remove him from office, claiming the notices were illegal as they did not comply with the 15-day notice requirement under Section 16(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the notice period under Section 16(1) was directory, not mandatory, and that the purpose of the notice was to ensure attendance of concerned persons. The Court held that if members had reasonable notice and attended the meeting, an exception could be taken only if the notice did not strictly conform to the law.
Issues: 1. Whether the 15-day notice period under Section 16(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, was mandatory or directory. 2. Whether the meeting held to remove the petitioner from office was valid despite the shorter notice period.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on various precedents, including K. Narasimhiah v. H.G. Singri Gowda, Bhagirathi Co-op. Joint Farming Society v. Howrah Zilla Parishad, and Md. Asraf Ali Mandal v. The Block Development Officers & Ors., which held that provisions relating to notice periods are often directory, not mandatory. 2. The Court observed that the purpose of the notice was to ensure attendance of concerned persons, and that if members had reasonable notice and attended the meeting, an exception could be taken only if the notice did not strictly conform to the law.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's application, holding that the notice period under Section 16(1) was directory, not mandatory, and that the meeting held to remove the petitioner from office was valid despite the shorter notice period.
Satyabrata Sinha, J.
The petitioner in this application has, inter alia, prayed for issuance a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to set aside or withdraw the notices dated 9th October, 1994 and 8th November, 1994 as contained in annexures 'A' & 'B' to the writ application respectively.
2. The petitioner is the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. The general election of the Members of the said Panchayat was held on 31st May, 1993 wherein he was elected as a Member. Respondent Nos. 8 to 24 were also elected as Members of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner was elected as a Pradhan in a meeting called for that purpose, and Respondent No. 24 was elected as Upa-Pradhan.
3. On 20th June, 1994 Respondent Nos. 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20 and 22 to 24 issued a notice asking the petitioner to requisition a meeting in terms of s. 16(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The validity of the said notice was questioned before this Court and by an order dated 13th July, 1994 a learned Single Judge of this Court directed :-
"Let this matter come up for hearing as 'Contested Application' 8 weeks hence.
Petitioner shall serve notice and copy of the application upon the other private respondents by registered post with AID and file Affidavit-of-Service at the time of hearing.
The impugned notice in terms of Annexure 'A' & 8' to the writ petition be not held till further orders".
4. The aforementioned respondents again issued a letter dated 19th October, 1994 asking him to call a meeting for his removal from the post of Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat. A copy of the said letter was served upon the petitioner on 26th Oct. 1994 which is contained in Annexure 'A' to the writ application.
5. On 9th November, 1994 the respondents requisitioned a meeting.
6. The only contention raised in this application is that in view of the provisions of s. 16 of the said Act the meeting requisitioned by the concerned respondents is illegal inasmuch as prior thereto, 15 days from the date of service of notice dated 19.10.94 had not elapsed.
7. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, is that the said requisitioned notice was sent under registered cover but the same could not be served upon the petitioner before 26th October, 1994 as the petitioner was absent from 20th October, 1994 to 25th October, 1994 as would appear from the endorsement made by the postal peon. It has been submitted that pursuant to the said notice a meeting had already been convened and by an overwhelming majority a resolution for removing the petitioner from the post of. Pradhan has been adopted by the members of the Panchayat. It is stated that in view of the fact that the petitioner has not been prejudiced by reason of the said notice, this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in the matter.
8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in support of his aforementioned contention has relied upon Md. Asraf Ali Mondal vs. The Block Development Officers & Ors., reported in 1992(2) CHN 229, K. Narasimhiah vs. H. G. Singri Gowda & Ors., reported in AIR 1966 SC 330, Bhagirathi Co-op. Joint Farming Society vs. Howrah Zilla Parisad, reported in 87 CWN 981 and Hukam Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in AIR 1984 Raj 119.
9. From the facts as noticed hereinbefore it will appear that there is no dispute with regard to the following facts.
10. A notice was issued on 20.10.1994. The said notice under s. 16(1) of the Panchayat Act was served upon the petitioner on 20.10.1994. The impugned notice was thereafter issued on 8.11.1994. Admittedly, therefore, the period of 15 days had not elapsed from 26.10.1994 till the date of the issuance of the impugned notice.
11. Section 12 and the relevant provisions of s. 16(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read thus :
"12. A Pradhan or an Upa-Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat may at any time, be removed from office by a resolution of t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
