A meeting convened to test confidence in an Upo-Prodhan, with the consequence of removal if confidence is lacking, is a meeting for removal of the Upo-Prodhan within the meaning of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, triggering the prohibition on a second meeting for removal within six months.

The writ petitioner was elected Upo-Prodhan of Faridpur Gram Panchayat in the District of Nadia.

2. Eight members of the Faridpur Gram Panchayat sent a notice dated October 21, 2002 to the Prodhan requesting him to convene a meeting to consider their proposal to remove the Upo-Prodhan. On the basis of the said notice the Prodhan of the Gram Panchayat convened a meeting on October 31, 2002 with agenda for verifying testing the confidence in favour of Upo-Prodhan. In the meeting dated October 31, 2002 eight requisitionists supported a resolution for cancelling the meeting on the ground that the Prodhan intentionally used incorrect language in the agenda of the meeting. On the basis of the said resolution supported by eight members the meeting came to an end without transacting any business, The said eight requisitionists of the Gram Panchayat thereafter convened a requisition meeting on November 15, 2002 to discuss their proposal to remove the Upo-Prodhan. In the meeting held on November 15, 2002 resolution to remove the writ petitioner was adopted. In pursuance of the said resolution the prescribed authority and Block Development Officer, Kaliagang informed all concerned that the writ petitioner had been removed from the office of the Upo-Prodhan. The writ petitioner had challenged legality and propriety of the said requisition meeting, the resolution adopted therein and the consequential action of the prescribed authority under the West Bengal Panchayat Act.

3. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that no resolution having been adopted in the meeting convened by the Prodhan of the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of removing the Upo-Prodhan a second meeting for the same purpose was not permissible within six months from the date of the said first meeting. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that as the proposed resolution was for ‘testing confidence in the Upo-Prodhan’ the said meeting convened by the Prodhan was not a meeting for removal of the Upo-Prodhan as required under Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as such the requisition meeting cannot be treated as the second meeting.

4. The Prodhan or Upo-Prodhan of a Gram Panchayat remains in office so long as he enjoys the confidence of the majority of the members of the Panchayat or is not otherwise declared disqualified to continue as such. The meeting dated October 21, 2002 was convened because of the notice of the requisition given by eight members. Language used in the agenda was ‘for testing the confidence in Upo-Prodhan’. The effect of testing confidence is to ascertain whether the Prodhan or Upo-Prodhan, as the case may be, enjoy the confidence of the majority of the members of the Panchayat or not. Prodhan or Upo-Prodhan cannot continue in office if he/she does not enjoy confidence of the majority of the members. Lack of confidence of the majority is necessary for removing a Prodhan or Upo-Prodhan. The purpose of the impugned meeting was very clear and it was to ascertain whether the majority members had confidence or no confidence in the Upo-Prodhan. Consequence of lack of confidence of the majority members was removal of Upo-Prodhan as proposed by the Requisitionists. The difference in language should not matter unless the difference is such that it is likely to misload the members of the Panchayat in the matter of expressing their opinion or its effect or consequence is not the removal of Prodhan or Upo-Prodhan. Thus, it cannot be said no meeting for the purpose of removing the Upo-Prodhan within the meaning of Section 12 of Act was convened. A meeting was convened and held. The requisitionists themselves adopted a resolution to cancel the meeting. In spite of difference in language purpose was clear. In such situation second proviso to Section 12 of the Act came into play and no second meeting could be convened for removal of the Upo-Prodhan within six months from October 31, 2002.

5. Mrs. San