The court held that the Gram Panchayat's notices were valid because they were issued within the prescribed period under Rule 23F of the Rules and that the petitioners could appeal the Gram Panchayat's refusal to grant permission to construct under Section 23 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.

Amitava Lala, J.

It appears to this court that the petitioners have made the writ petition challenging the two notices issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat on 22.10.2001 and 26.11.2001 by which the construction carried out by the petitioners in their own land was directed to be stopped. According to the petitioners, such notices are bad in law. According to the petitioners, an application for obtaining permission for construction is to be made under Rule 19(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 1981 which was followed by the petitioners by making an application alongwith the fees prescribed for the purpose. Therefore, either the Gram Panchayat authorised or refused to authorise within the prescribed date of 30 days as made under Rule 23F of the said Rules. Otherwise, a deeming provision will be applicable. Therefore, when such period has expired and the two notices have been issued, the same are treated to be nonest in the eye of law. By making such submission even at the interim stage, an order was obtained from a Bench of this court in terms of prayer (e) of the writ petition as on 21.2.2002. Such interim order speaks as follows:-

"An interim order of injunction restraining the respondents, their men and agents, subordinates, employees and each one of them from demolishing the construction of the building on the land of the petitioner which is situated over the said land which has been particularly described in paragraph 2 of this writ application pursuant to the notice dated 26th November, 2001 (being Annexure 'P-5) to this writ application in any manner whatsoever till the disposal of the rule".

2. According to the petitioners the interim order was granted by the court in presence of the State respondents. Now, the Panchayat authority appeared before this court by making an application of vacating such order under CAN No. 4217 of 2002 which was directed to be heard alongwith the main writ petition.

3. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Panchayat authority, the interim order might have been obtained in presence of the State respondent but not in presence of the Panchayat authority. The interim order is liable to be vacated on the basis of the own showing of the writ petition. The learned Counsel has clarified that the appropriate fees for sanctioning the plan and allowing to construct on 18.5.2001 and the reply by the Prodhan was given on 14.6.2001 for stopping the work which is within the prescribed period of one month under Rule 23F of the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 1981. Such stoppage of work was made when the petitioners without waiting for the prescribed period under the Rules started an illegal construction. Hence, by making improper submission, an interim order was obtained from the court. In fact, the impugned notices are subsequent to such notice. He has further drawn my attention to the letters of the petitioners dated 15.6.2001 as well as the representation of the people of the locality dated 18.5.2001. It has contended by the petitioners in one of the letter that an enquiry is to be made and the restraining order which has been passed from constructing the house be withdrawn. The learned Counsel further contended before this court that if there is a refusal to grant such sanction, there is a provision of appeal under Rule 23Q of the aforesaid Rules. But the petitioners did not prefer the same if at all aggrieved by any order. I believe that there is slightest fallacy in this respect. Section 23 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 says that grant of permission or refusal is to be made under sub-section (3) and if anybody is aggrieved from such order, he can prefer an appeal within 90 days under sub-section (4) of such section. The Rule is a child of such Act. The Rule cannot be read de hors the Act. Both the Act and Rules says that an appeal can be preferred from the refusal to grant permission to the erection of any struc