Back
ARIJIT BANERJEE, KAUSIK CHANDA
Panchanan Mahato – Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal – Respondent
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-c
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 cont....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice for the no confidence motion was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, and therefore d....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with the provisions of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, regarding the removal of elected representatives and the n....
The court upheld the validity of the no confidence motion requisition under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, confirming the necessity for clear allegations and the petitioner's failure to disclose key fa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 'Motion of No Confidence' must fulfill the mandatory requirements set out in Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, a....
The court affirmed that a second No Confidence Motion is permissible if the first requisition did not lead to a valid meeting or vote, as per the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following statutory procedures and the authority's jurisdiction under the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.
The legal framework for a no-confidence motion, as outlined in the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Rules, 1994, must be followed, including the prescribed authority's satisfaction ....
The court held that a no confidence motion passed during a meeting convened without proper notice is invalid and nullifies the decision taken.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
