The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 12(3) and 12(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, regarding the requisition for removal of the Pradhan and the implications of stigmatic requisitions and the bar on subsequent motions for removal within a year.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

The writ petitioners are some of the elected members of Dharmada Gram Panchayat. The respondent no.11 was elected as the Pradhan of the said gram panchayat. The respondent no. 12 to 17 are the other elected members of the said gram panchayat. The writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction of the prescribed authority in acting in terms of the provisions of the Section 12(3) and 12(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

2. The facts are as narrated herein. Initially, the petitioners claiming to be majority members brought a motion on August 10, 2021 for removal of the Pradhan. Falling prey to political pressure, the petitioners wrote a letter to the prescribed authority dated August 13, 2021, expressing their desire not to proceed with the requisition. The prescribed authority by an order dated August 16, 2021 cancelled the motion dated August 10, 2021, granting the requisitionists leave to bring a fresh motion of no confidence. On the basis of the leave granted by the prescribed authority, twelve out of nineteen members brought a fresh requisition on September 10, 2021 with a request to the prescribed authority to convene a meeting in terms of Sections 12(4) of the said Act, for removal of the Pradhan. The requisition was served upon the prescribed authority. It has been alleged that despite receiving the requisition dated September 10, 2021, the prescribed authority failed to take steps in terms of Sections 12(3) and 12(4) of the said Act. It has been further alleged that neither did the prescribed authority satisfy himself about the compliances of Section 12(2) of the said Act, nor did he issue a notice calling for a meeting, within five working days from the receipt of the requisition as provided under the statute. Aggrieved, the petitioners moved this writ petition before this Court for a direction upon the prescribed authority to convene a meeting in accordance with the provisions of the statute and the rules framed there under, so that the entire process would be completed within the period prescribed under Section 12(10) of the said Act.

3. The writ petition had come up for hearing for the first time on September 27, 2021. This court was of the opinion that the requisition dated September 10, 2021 could not be allowed to be proceeded with, as the same was stigmatic. The state respondents as also the learned senior advocate for the Pradhan raised objections with regard to the requisition alleging that the foundation of the requisition was allegations of corruption, unethical conduct and misbehaviour with the staffs and other members of the gram panchayat. This court was of the view that the requisition which was stigmatic could not be proceeded with and the same should be set aside and cancelled.

4. Mr. Dhar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the Pradhan submitted that even if the requisition was set aside on the ground of the same being stigmatic, no leave could be granted to the requisitionists to bring a fresh requisition in the facts of this case.

5. In view of the decisions of the court in the matter of Ujjal Mondal vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2013 (1) CHN (CAL) and Sourendra Nath Das vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. passed in WPA 11903 of 2021 the requisition is liable to be set aside.

6. In the matter of Ujjal Mondal (supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that the requisition notice/no confidence motion was entertainable only when there was no foundation for bringing the motion. The relevant portion is quoted below:

"24. Having regard to section 101 of the said Act, we are of the view that a 'no confidence motion' is entertainable for removal of Prodhan where there should not be any ground or foundation of bringing 'no confidence motion' and if 'no confidence motion' is carried on that ground, it will invite civil consequence or evil consequence to the Office Bearers relating to his political career