Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
In re: Tafiluddin Ahmed & others
Decided on : 20.1.1994
WEST BENGAL PANCHAYAT ACT, 1973 - SECTIONS 12, 16 - GRAM PANCHAYAT - REMOVAL OF PRADHAN - MEETING - PRESIDING OFFICER - ELECTION OF PRESIDENT BY MEMBERS IN ABSENCE OF PRADHAN AND UPA-PRADHAN - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed challenging the validity of a meeting of a Gram Panchayat held on 4th November, 1993, and the resolutions adopted therein, on the grounds that (i) the petitioners had not been given seven clear days notice of the meeting, as contemplated in S. 17 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, and (ii) the meeting had not been presided over by the Upa-Pradhan, although, he was present at the meeting.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the meeting of 4th November, 1993, and the resolutions adopted therein were void on the ground that notice of the requisition meeting had not been received by all the members, and in some cases, such notice was received beyond the period prescribed under S. 17 of the aforesaid Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the meeting of 4th November, 1993, and the resolutions adopted therein were valid? 2. Whether the meeting was properly presided over in accordance with the provisions of S. 16(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provisions of S. 17 regarding 7 day's notice was mandatory and in the absence of such notice, any meeting of the Gram Panchayat would be void. 2. The court interpreted S. 12 read with S. 16 of the Act and held that in a meeting for removal of the Pradhan, even though he is present at the meeting and participates therein, he will be deemed to be absent and the meeting is to be presided over by the Upa-Pradhan. Similarly, in a meeting for removal of the Upa-Pradhan, he will be deemed to be absent, though present at the meeting. In the absence of both, that is, if the meeting is for the removal of the Pradhan and the Upa-Pradhan is absent, or the meeting is for removal of the Upa-Pradhan and the Pradhan is absent, then in such event, the members present would be entitled to elect one of them to preside over the meeting.
Final Decision: The court quashed the meeting held on 4th November, 1993, and the resolutions adopted therein. However, the court allowed the members of the Gram Panchayat to proceed afresh in accordance with law for the purposes mentioned in S. 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.
1. This writ application raises a short but interesting point of law relating to certain provisions of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, and the West Bengal (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 1981.
2. The petitioner no.1 is the Pradhan and the other petitioners are members of the no.7 Silgram Gram Panchayat, under Raigunj Police Station, in the district of Uttar Dinajpur.
3. It appears that by a written notice dated 5th October, 1993, some of the members of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat requested the petitioner no.1 to convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the petitioner no.1 continued to enjoy the confidence of the majority of the members to continue as the Pradhan thereof. It appears that on the failure of the petitioner no.1 to convene such meeting, the respondent no. 5 to 19 issued a notice convening a requisition meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 4th November, 1993, for the purpose referred to in the notice of 5th October, 1993.
4. It appears that the requisition meeting was held as scheduled on 4th November, 1993, and was presided over by one Shri Naba Kumar Barman, a member of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat, although, the Upa-Pradhan, Shri Tirthanan Das, was present at the meeting.
5. The aforesaid meeting has been questioned by the petitioners mainly on two grounds.
6. Appearing in support of the writ petition, Mr. M. Ahmed urged that the meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 4th November, 1993, and the resolutions adopted therein, stood vitiated by the fact that the petitioners had not been given seven clear days notice of the meeting, as contemplated in S. 17 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, and also because the meeting had not been presided over by the Upa-Pradhan, although, he was present at the meeting.
7. Mr. Ahmed submitted that, although, S. 17 of the aforesaid Act provides for clear seven days notice to be given of every meeting of a Gram Panchayat, except for emergent meetings for which three days notice was sufficient, the notices in the instant case were received by the petitioners between 30th October, 1993 and 2nd November, 1993. Mr. Ahmed added that the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 had, in fact, not even been served with notice of the meeting, which fact was duly brought to the notice of the Block Development Officer, Raigunj Block, by a letter dated 4th November, 1993, being Annexure 'C' to the writ petition.
8. Mr. Ahmed next submitted that the manner in which the meeting had been held was contrary to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, which reads as follows:-
"16(2). The Pradhan or in his absence the Upa-Pradhan shall preside at the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, and in the absence of both, the members present shall elect one of them to he the President of the meeting."
9. Mr. Ahmed submitted that since the Upa-Pradhan was present at the meeting he should have presided over the meeting in accordance with the above provisions. Since he had not done so, and the meeting was presided over by another member of the Gram Panchayat, the meeting must be held to have been vitiated on that score also.
10. Mr. Ahmed also submitted that such illegality was brought to the notice of the respondents no.2 and 4 by the petitioner no.1, but instead of canceling the resolutions adopted at the said meeting of 4th November, 1993, the said respondents simultaneously issued two notices informing the petitioner no.1 that in view of the decision of the majority of the members, he was removed from the post of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat under S. 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The petitioner no.1 was also requested to hand over charge of the Gram Panchayat to the Upa-Pradhan immediately.
11. Mr. Ahmed urged that the meeting of 4th November, 1993, being itself illegal and invalid, the subsequent directions given by the respondents nos.2 and 4 pursuant to the resolutions adopted therein, were also illegal and void an
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
