2002 Supreme(Cal) 146
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Barin Ghosh, J.
Josoda Mondal
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
C.R. No. 1415 (W) of 2002; CAN No. 956 of 2002 with W.P. 18371(W) of 2001
Decided on : 5th March, 2002
Dipankar Pal for the petitioner
S. Dasgupta & S. Roy for the State
Washef Ali Mondal for the applicant in CAN No. 956 of 2002
The court emphasized the importance of giving the requisition to the designated authority, in this case, the Prodhan, and interpreted that the receipt of the requisition by the job assistant fulfilled this requirement.
Headnote:
Requisition - Gram Panchayat - The court held that the requisition for convening a meeting to consider the removal of the petitioner from the post of Prodhan must be given to the Prodhan, and the Prodhan has the authority to convene the meeting. If the Prodhan does not convene the meeting, the requisitionists are permitted to do so. The court found that the job assistant, being directly under the Prodhan, should have forwarded the requisition to the Prodhan, and the receipt of the requisition by the job assistant was deemed sufficient to fulfill the requirement of giving the requisition to the Prodhan.
Fact of the Case:
The requisitionists filed a writ petition alleging that the Prodhan did not hold a meeting to consider their motion seeking the removal of the petitioner from the post of Prodhan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the requisition was duly given to the Prodhan, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the requisition for convening a meeting was validly given to the Prodhan.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the requisition must be given to the Prodhan, and the job assistant, being directly under the Prodhan, should have forwarded the requisition to fulfill this requirement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and vacated any interim orders, as the requisition was deemed to have been duly given to the Prodhan.
Barin Ghosh, J.
On 12th December, 2001 I refused to grant any interim order. The reason, therefore, had been indicated in the order dated 12th December, 2001. It is the contention in the writ petition, which has been filed by the Prodhan, that the requisitionists did not serve the requisition upon the Prodhan for the purpose of convening a meeting to consider the motion seeking such removal of the petitioner from the post of Prodhan. The requisitionists, since the Prodhan did not hold the meeting in terms of the requisition proposed to hold the meeting to consider the self same motion. It appeared to me, that either the Prodhan is telling lie or the requisitionists are telling lie and, accordingly, I refused to grant any interim order but at the same time directed the matter to appear as "Listed Motion" once again.
2. Service was effected. But when the matter was listed once again none of the requisitionists appeared and accordingly, I had no other option but to hold in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, on 11th January, 2002 I passed an order.
3. In the vacating application filed subsequently, the requisitionists have disclosed the records which contains an acknowledgement of receipt of the said requisition by the job assistant of the Gram Panchayat in question. It was contended that since the requisition was submitted to the job assistant and not to the Prodhan, this was not a requisition at all.
4. The Rules are silent as to how a requisition is required to be served. The Act, however, says that the requisition must be given to the Prodhan. It does not say that the requisition, in writing, must be served upon the Prodhan. The Act only says that there must be a requisition by the specified number of Members and that such requisition must be in writing. It further says such requisition should be given to the Prodhan.
5. The reason why that should be given to the Prodhan is that until the Prodhan is removed from his post, he being the leader of the team, should be shown respect and accordingly he alone has been authorised to convene a meeting to consider even such a motion. Only in the event, despite such requisition, the Prodhan does not convene a meeting, the law permits the requisitionists to convene a meeting.
6. The job assistant is directly under the Prodhan. He is the executive head of the Gram Panchayat, and working directly under the Prodhan. In the normal course, a high authority, as the Prodhan, is not required to accept all communications by his own hand. If a requisition is handed over to the job assistant for the purpose of forwarding the same to the Prodhan, the presumption would be that the job assistant, upon receipt of the requisition, did forward the same to the Prodhan to bring to his knowledge that such a requisition has been received. The Prodhan thereupon is required to act. But a person, who is working directly under the Prodhan, would not forward the requisition to the Prodhan is incomprehensible.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the receipt by the job assistant might have been manufactured or procured later. That may be so; but sitting in writ jurisdiction, I cannot declare the same. For that the petitioner would be required to approach such fact findings authority as the petitioners may be advised. However, until such time it is declared to be a manufactured document, I cannot shut my eyes to the same, and if I look at the same, I have no other alternative but to pronounce that the Prodhan was duly given the requisition and, accordingly, there is nothing further survives in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
8. All interim orders, if any, stands vacated.
9. In view of disposal of the writ application, the connected application being CAN No. 956 of 2002 has become infructuous and treating the same as on days' list and the same is dismissed as such.
10. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeals dismissed.