The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Rule 17(6) and Rule 18 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975, in the context of a no-confidence motion and the procedure for removal of members and Karmadhyaksha of Sthayee Samiti.

JUDGMENT

Kausik Chanda, J. - In the writ petition, a motion of no-confidence dated December 9, 2021, against some Sthayee Samiti-members of the Jhalda-II Panchayat Samiti including the writ petitioner/appellant, was challenged. The writ petitioner/appellant was the Karmadhyaksha of the said Sthayee Samiti. The writ petitioner/appellant also challenged a notice dated December 15, 2021, convening a meeting on December 28, 2021, under Rule 17(6)(c) of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975, issued by the Prescribed authority /Sub-Divisional Officer of Jhalda Sub-Division, Purulia.

2. By an order dated January 10, 2022, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

3. Before us, Mr. Joytosh Majumdar, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that for the removal of a Karmadhyaksha of a Panchayat Samiti, specific provisions have been engrafted in Rule 18 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975. Therefore, the attempt to remove the appellant invoking Rule 17(6) of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

4. By referring to the requisition notice dated December 9, 2021, it was pointed out that the no-confidence motion against the said members was moved 'due to their inactive in their Sthayee Samity.' By placing reliance upon a judgment reported at (2013) 1 CHN (Cal) 458 (Ujjal Mondal v. State of West Bengal) it has been submitted that a prescribed authority could not convene the meeting for the removal of the members on the basis of such no-confidence motion since the allegations contained therein cast stigma upon the said members.

5. It has also been suggested that the said notice dated December 15, 2021, is defective, vague, and ambiguous since it does not specify whether the meeting was convened for removal of the Sthayee Samiti members or it was a no-confidence motion against the said members.

6. Mr. Majumdar has, further, relied upon a judgment reported at (2010) 11 SCC 694 (State of West Bengal v. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee) for the proposition that the Court cannot direct the Government to act contrary to rules and the Constitutional courts having the power of judicial review, have jurisdiction only in case of unjust treatment by State action or inaction.

7. Further, reliance has been placed upon a judgment reported at (2009) 15 SCC 221 (Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited v. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar) to argue that the Court has jurisdiction to review where an administrative order is perverse or arbitrary as also where there is non-discharge of statutory duty by a statutory authority.

8. Mr. Majumdar lastly relied on paragraph no. 40 of the judgment reported at (2011) 15 SCC 1 (Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur) for the proposition that when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. Where a statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden.

9. Mr. Raja Saha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that the writ petitioner/appellant was a member of the Sthayee Samiti and he was also the elected Karmadhyaksha. Mr. Saha has submitted that Rule 18 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975 is invoked for removal of a Karmadhyaksha retaining his status as a member of the Sthayee Samiti. The relevant no-confidence motion was moved for removal of the appellant as a Sthayee Samiti member. Therefore, Rule 17(6) of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975, was rightly invoked.

10. Mr. Dipankar Pal, learned advocate appearing for the requisitionists also supported the impugned actions of the State. Mr. Pal adopted the submission of Mr. Saha. He, further, argued that since the no-confiden