A resolution for no confidence in the Pradhan does not automatically result in the removal of the Pradhan. A separate resolution for removal is required, and the requisition notice must specify the removal of the Pradhan.

Majumdar, J.:

1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment dated 11th April, 1994, passed by a learned Judge of this Court on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, taken out by one Daud Hossain, the respondent in this appeal, for cancellation of the requisition meeting dated 16th February, 1994, as also the notice dated 4th February, 1994, being Annexure 'E' to the writ petition. The learned Judge allowed the said application and quashed the resolution adopted at the meeting dated 16th February, 1994. The learned Judge by the said order under appeal also directed that the said order would not prevent the members of the Gram Panchayat from proceeding afresh for removal of the Pradhan.

2. Kitabuddin Seikh, the respondent No. 13 in the writ proceeding, one of the members of the Sujapur Gram Panchayat has preferred this appeal being dissatisfied with the said order under appeal dated.11th April, 1994. The respondent Daud Hossain challenged the resolution of the said meeting, inter alia, contending before the Trial Court that the notice convening the meeting was in violation of the provisions of Section 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and, accordingly, the meeting and the resolution adopted therein were void and could not be given effect to. It was also contended on behalf of the writ petitioner before the Trial Court that there was no proper notice or resolution for removal of the respondent writ petitioner as Pradhan of said Sujapur Gram Panchayat, Kaliachak-I Panchayat Samity, District-Maida.

3. The case of the writ petitioner as made out in the writ petition is that suddenly a notice of requisition meeting dated 4th February, 1994 was served on the writ petitioner by the requisitionists requesting a meeting in connection with the no confidence against the writ petitioner as Pradhan of the said Sujapur Gram Panchayat.

4. The appellant contended before the Trial Court that all the members have been duty served within the prescribed time and in any event, since the writ petitioner had been removed by a majority of the members of the Gram Panchayat, a meeting of the Gram Panchayat could be convened to ascertain the support of the members of the Gram Panchayat for the newly elected Pradhan. It was also the case of the appellant before the Trial Court that he has been duly elected as Pradhan after removal of the writ petitioner as Pradhan of the' Sujapur Gram Panchayat.

5. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the notice of the meeting had duly been served on all the members but the resolutions that were adopted were not in conformity with the notice convening the said meeting to be held on 16th February, 1994. It was also submitted on behalf of the State before the Trial Court that the resolution was adopted in a manner which was contrary to the provisions of Rule 13 of the West Bengal Gram Panchayat Administration Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules).

6. The learned Trial Judge held that since the procedure has not been resorted to, notwithstanding unanimity of the members present in the meeting, the impugned resolution stood vitiated by such non-compliance. Besides this, the learned Judge also held that the requisition meeting was called to consider the question of confidence against the Pradhan (the writ petitioner) and not for his removal and, accordingly, the resolution adopted at the meeting on 16th February, 1994 for removal of the Pradhan was contrary to the notice given and the same also could not be supported. The learned Trial Judge recorded his appreciation of the matter in which the learned Advocate for the State had assisted the Court in arriving at a proper finding in the matter. As stated above, the said writ application taken out by Daud Hossain, the respondent in this appeal was allowed.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal has contended that the said resolution taken in the said meeting