The importance of upholding a democratic process initiated by the requisite number of members for the removal of an office-holder in a Gram Panchayat.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Banerjee, J. - This is an appeal against a Judgment and Order dated September 30, 2021 whereby W.P.A 16007 of 2021 was disposed of.

2. The writ petitioner/appellant approached the learned Single Judge challenging a requisition notice dated September 16, 2021, signed by 13 members of the Birnagar - II Gram Panchayat, for convening a meeting for removal of the writ petitioner as Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat.

Pursuant to such requisition, the Prescribed Authority convened a meeting which was held on October 1, 2021. The writ petitioner's contention before the learned Single Judge was and also before us is, that the Prescribed Authority erred in convening the meeting without satisfying himself that Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (in short 'the said Act') has been complied with inasmuch as the requisitionists nos. 4, 6 and 9 failed to mention their party affiliation in the registration notice although the law mandates that the same shall be done. The writ petitioner argued that the requisition notice should be set aside and the meeting called on the basis thereof should be cancelled and declared to be bad in law.

3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Judge passed the impugned order, the operative portion whereof reads as follows:

Having heard the contentions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that intervention of the Court is required to the extent that the 3 requisitionists who have failed to mention their party affiliation in the requisition should not be allowed to cast their vote in the meeting to be held on October 1, 2021. The rest of the requisition being in order and there being no other challenge either to the requisition or to the meeting, no further interference is required by the Court. The Prescribed Authority shall continue with the meeting as fixed on October 1, 2021 in accordance with law and reach the same to its logical conclusion in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

The respondent nos. 9, 11 and 14 shall be restrained from casting their vote in the meeting on October 1, 2021. All further proceedings may continue in accordance with law and they will be entitled to participate in the subsequent meetings and cast their votes.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

5. Out of 17 members of the concerned Gram Panchayat, 13 members signed the requisition for removal of the Pradhan. The contention of the writ petitioner/appellant is that the Requisitionists no. 4, 6 and 9 did not mention their political affiliation or independent status in the notice. According to the writ petitioner it was mandatory for the said 3 requisitionists to indicate their political affiliation or independent status. Failure to do so renders the entire notice/motion bad in law. As a corollary, all actions taken on the basis of such notice would be held to be invalid and non-est in the eye law.

6. The writ petitioner has relied on the decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of [Farida Bibi vs. State of West Bengal, 2016 (5) CHN (CAL) 258] in support of the proposition that non-mentioning of the political affiliation or independent status of the requisitionists shall vitiate a notice requisitioning a meeting for removal of the Pradhan and no action can be taken on the basis of such notice. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors. vs. Govind Joti Chavare & Ors. (AIR 1975 SC 915) in support of the proposition that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.

7. The respondents have contended that the stipulation in Section 12(2) of the Panchayat Act requiring the requisitionists to indicate their party affiliation or independent status is merely directory and not mandatory. Non- mentioning of the same, would not vitiate