JUDGMENT :

(Arijit Banerjee, J.):

1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated March 29, 2022, whereby the writ petition of the appellant in MAT 468 of 2022, being WPA No. 4584 of 2022, was disposed of. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has filed MAT 468 of 2022. MAT 486 of 2022 has been filed by four persons claiming to be members of the concerned Panchayat. The appellant no. 1 in that appeal claims to be the leader of the opposition. The appellants in MAT 486 of 2022 claim that they were necessary parties to the writ petition but were not impleaded as respondents. They were thus deprived of the opportunity of placing their case before the learned Single Judge. By reason thereof, they have suffered prejudice. They have taken out an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated March 29, 2022. We are not inclined to grant such leave. These intending appellants are essentially supporting the appellant in M.A.T 468 of 2022 who has been heard in extenso on several dates. M.A.T 486 of 2022 along with the connected applications are accordingly disposed of.

2. The aforesaid intending appellants in M.A.T. 486 of 2022 have also taken out an application for being added as respondents in MAT 468 of 2022. For the same reason for which we declined leave to appeal to them, we reject the application whereby the said persons seek to be added as respondents in MAT 468 of 2022.

3. The appellant in MAT 468 of 2022 approached the learned Single Judge challenging a motion dated March 3, 2022, brought by the requisite number of members of the concerned Panchayat, for removing her from the office of Pradhan. The appellant/writ petitioner also challenged the notice dated March 7, 2022, issued by the Prescribed Authority under Rule 5B of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975. The grounds on which the motion and the notice of meeting issued by the Prescribed Authority were assailed, as would appear from the writ petition, were as follows:-

“I. For that the Prescribed Authority and the Block Development Officer Joynagar – I, Block Development at Baharu, District 24 Parganas ignored the provision of Section 12(3) of West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 by not sending the notice before clear 7 days to your petitioner for consideration of conducing a meeting and for taking decision on it.

II. For that the Prescribed Authority and Block Development officer did not observe the compliance of Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 before issuing the notice dated 07.03.2022.

III. For that as per Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 the Prescribed Authority and the Block Development Officer, Joynagar – 1 Block Development, Officer at Baharu, District – South 24-Parganas is duty bound to send the notice within clear 7 days to your petitioner.

IV. For that since the West Bengal Panchayat Act gives a direction upon the Prescribed Authority to perform the mandatory duty by issuing notice within five working days from the receiving of the notice for the purpose of conducting meeting of removal of Pradhan in the Rajapur Karabeg Gram Panchayat by suppressing the notice dated 07.03.2022.

V. For that the Prescribed Authority cannot issue notice for conducting the meeting during the stay period arising out of C.A.N. 1+2 of 2022 in W.P.A. No. 171 of 2022.

VI. For that the Prescribed Authority cannot issue the notice dated 07.03.2022 since it is not the compliance of solemn order passed by the Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattarcharya on 10.01.2022 in W.P.A. No. 171 of 2022.”

4. There appears to have been several rounds of litigation between the parties hereto. Let us briefly discuss the factual background of the present litigation.

5. A Motion dated November 23, 2021, for removal of the appellant as Pradhan was brought by 9 out of 17 members of the Panchayat. Alleging inaction on the part of the Prescribed Authority, the requisitionists approached a learned Single Judge of this Court