The amended provision of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, allows for the removal of a Prodhan by a majority of existing members expressing lack of confidence or recording a decision to remove at a specially convened meeting.

Girish Chandra Gupta, J.

The subject matter of challenge in the appeal is a judgment and order dated 25th February, 2015 passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the writ petition without any order as to costs.

2. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows:-

3. The writ petitioner was elected as the Prodhan of Rampur - I Gram Panchayat, Jorari, Coochbehar on 16th August, 2013. On 5th September 2014, the respondents No. 7 to 16 requested the prescribed authority to convene a meeting for removal of the Prodhan, in pursuance whereof, the prescribed authority convened a meeting, to be held on 19th September, 2014 at 12 noon, by a notice dated 9th September, 2014 for consideration of the motion for removal of/lack of confidence against the Prodhan and for taking decision on it.

4. The notice dated 9th September, 2014 convening a meeting was challenged in W.P. No. 26758 (W) of 2014 on the ground that the notice was ambiguous, because the expression removal/lack of confidence had both been used. It was alleged that there was no specific agenda.

5. Mr. Basu, contended that the intention of the law is that there has to be first a no confidence motion passed against the Prodhan and then the question of a motion for removal of the Prodhan might arise. He in support of his submission relied upon a judgment in the case of Mihir Mondal reported in 1994 (1) CHN 423, wherein the following views were taken:-

“Apart from the above, I am of the view that Ss. 12 and 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, do not contemplate removal of the Prodhan and the Upa-Prodhan in one meeting and two separate meetings are required to be held for the said purpose upon two separate notices having been given in support thereof.”

6. He also relied upon a judgment in the case of Kitabuddin Seikh v. Daud Hossain reported in 1995 (1) CLJ 198 wherein the following views were taken:-

“It, therefore, appears that a Prodhan or an Upa-Prodhan may be removed from office by a resolution carried by majority of the existing members of the Gram Panchayat. The notice of such meeting shall be given to the prescribed authority. It, therefore, appears that there should be a resolution for removal of a Prodhan or an Upa-Prodhan of a Gram Panchayat. A resolution of no confidence cannot equate to resolution of removal.”

7. Mr. Basu added that a motion for no confidence and a motion for removal are conceptually different, which was also recognized by a Division Bench of this Court in an unreported judgment dated 19thNovember, 2014 in MAT No. 1983 of 2014 wherein the Hon'ble Chief Justice speaking for the Bench held as follows:-

“The writ petitioner contended before the learned Judge that a motion dated September 15, 2014 for expressing “no confidence” on the petitioner was initiated by the respondent nos. 6 to 15 out of total 15 members of the above Gram Panchayat. According to him, the impugned notice dated September 19, 2014 could not be sustained in law as the same was issued for removal of the petitioner from the office under reference instead of a notice for expressing “no confidence” on him.

The learned Judge accepted the contention of the writ petitioner and quashed the notice dated September 19, 2014. However, His Lordship made it clear that the point of law as discussed has only been decided in the writ application without interfering with the merits of other allegations raised in the writ application and this matter will not prevent the parties to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law.

Being aggrieved, some of the respondents have come up in appeal before us. It is contended on behalf of the appellants by reference to Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 that “no confidence” and “removal” essentially mean the same thing and the notice ought not to have been quashed for such minor discrepancy.

According to us, even this minor discrepancy would indicate non-application of mind on the part of the appellants. In any eve