Any allegation in a removal notice for the removal of a Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan which may amount to any kind of stigma is not permissible and the notice should simply state that the requisite number of members have lost confidence in the concerned office bearer and seek his/her approval.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Banerjee, J. - This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated January 5, 2023, whereby W.P.A No. 13257 of 2021 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge.

2. The writ petitioner, who is the respondent no. 6 in this appeal, approached the learned Single Judge challenging a requisition notice for her removal as Pradhan of the Banupur Gram Panchayat. The notice was challenged firstly on the ground that it contained a stigma and secondly on the ground that the party affiliations of the requisitionists were not mentioned in the notice.

3. The parties were directed to exchange affidavits. The State respondents and the requisitionists filed affidavits in opposition. From the annextures to the said affidavits, the learned Judge found that the second page of the requisition notice which contained the party affiliations with signatures and other details of the requisitionists, had not been annexed to the writ petition. Accordingly, the second ground for challenging the requisition notice was rejected by the learned Judge.

4. It was further urged before the learned Judge by the writ petitioner that the notice was not properly served on her. The learned Judge held that this was a disputed question of fact which the Court does not need to go into since the learned Judge found the notice to be stigmatic. The learned Judge referred to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ujjal Mondal v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2013 (1) CHN (CAL) 458 as also to the decision of this Court in the case of Sourendra Nath Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (WPA 11903 of 2021).

5. At the time when the writ petition was moved, the writ petitioner had already stood removed as Pradhan by a majority of 9 out of 10. Steps were taken for electing new Pradhan. The writ petitioner filed an application in the writ petition for staying the process of election of new Pradhan. The learned Judge by an order dated September 14, 2021 refused to pass any order on such application. Her Lady-ship, however, observed that all steps taken shall abide by the result of the writ petition. Subsequently, the present appellant was elected as the new Pradhan.

6. At the final hearing of the writ petition, having held that the notice for removal of the writ petitioner as Pradhan was stigmatic, the learned Judge set aside the notice along with all consequential actions taken thereafter, 'including the removal of the petitioner and election of the new Pradhan.' The learned Judge, however, granted liberty to the requisitionists 'to bring a fresh requisition as per Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (in short 'the 1973 Act'). If such requisition is brought, the prescribed authority shall act and proceed in terms of the provisions of Sections 12(3) and 12(4) onwards, of the said Act and reach the requisition to its logical conclusion within the time limit prescribed by the Statute. The bar under Section 12(11) of the said Act shall not be applicable.'

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 7 in the writ petition has preferred the present appeal. She is aggrieved because her election as Pradhan has been set aside and the writ petitioner has been reinstated as Pradhan by the order impugned.

8. The requisition notice dated August 9, 2021, addressed to the Block Development Officer / prescribed authority which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge, reads as follows:-

'Respected Sir,

We the undersigned are directly elected members of Banupur (I) Gram Panchayat. We are not satisfied with the work of Kaykashan Khatoon, Pradhan Banupur (I) Gram Panchayat. She is not discharging the duties of Pradhan transparently and, therefore, we think that the development work of the Panchayat is being disrupted. Due to this we are expressing our lack of confidence against her.

As you are the prescribed authority to take action in this regard under West Bengal Panchayat Act 1973, we request you to please take sui