JUDGMENT :

AMRITA SINHA, J.

1. The petitioners are the eleven elected members of Hariharpur Gram Panchayat, Mograhat I, Usthi, South 24 Parganas. The said gram panchayat has sixteen elected members. The petitioners submitted a requisition notice dated 08.04.2022 before the prescribed authority for removal of the respondent no. 8 who is the Pradhan of the said gram panchayat.

2. The petitioners’ grievance is that the prescribed authority did not take steps to convene the meeting in accordance with the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The time period for taking steps in response to the requisition notice has not been adhered to and the same is indirectly standing in the way of removal of the Pradhan. The petitioners pray for a direction upon the prescribed authority to act in accordance with law.

3. The petitioners rely upon the judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.01.2022 in WPA No. 15058 of 2021 (Rahuja Bibi and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others).

4. Learned Advocate representing the prescribed authority as well as the respondent no. 8 submits that an earlier requisition notice was served for removal of the Pradhan in November 2021 by twelve members of the said gram panchayat, but thereafter by a letter dated 13.01.2022, the requisitionists withdrew their requisition dated 30.11.2021. The prescribed authority, with the intention to verify the signatures of the requisitionists, served notice dated 24.01.2022 upon the twelve requisitionists requiring them to appear on 03.02.2022 for hearing their statement(s) with regard to withdrawal of their requisition. None appeared for verification of signatures.

5. According to the respondents as the requisition notice could not be carried through, as such, the provision of Section 12 (11) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 will act as a bar and there is no scope for calling a second meeting for removal of the Pradhan within one year from the date of the first requisition.

6. The respondents refer to the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CPAN No. 111 of 2022 in WPA 20837 of 2021 (Mahfuza Khatun and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others). It has been submitted that Mahfuza Khatun is the petitioner number eight in the present writ petition and she was the petitioner No. 1 in the earlier writ petition. The Hon’ble Court in the contempt proceeding was pleased to hold that, for the interest of the villagers and for the development of the gram panchayat, the requisitionists did not proceed with the no-confidence motion. At this stage there is no scope for entertaining a fresh requisition.

7. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. The issue to be decided in the present writ petition is whether Section 12 (11) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 will be a bar to submit fresh requisition notice within a year if the earlier requisition notice was withdrawn or not proceeded with by the requisitionists.

9. Section 12 deals with the provision for bringing in motion of no confidence for removal of Pradhan. The process of removal involves various stages. All the steps or stages are interlinked and one depends upon the other. In the event of non-compliance of a particular step, the next falls through. The corresponding sections detailing the stages/steps involved in the present case are as under:

(i) Section 12(1) of the aforesaid Act lays down that a Pradhan of a gram panchayat may, at any time, be removed from his office by the majority of the existing members of the gram panchayat, expressing their lack of confidence against the Pradhan or recording their decision to remove the Pradhan, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose.

(ii) Section 12 (2) lays down that for the purpose of removal of the Pradhan, one third of the existing members, subject to a minimum of three members, shall sign a motion in writing expressing their lack of confidence against the Pradhan and either deliver the motion in person throug