JUDGMENT :

Kausik Chanda, J.

The writ petitioners/appellants on November 16, 2021, submitted a requisition to the prescribed authority under the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 for removal of the Pradhan of Bhebia Gram Panchayat. The prescribed authority did not take any steps to convene a meeting on the basis of the said requisition which prompted the writ petitioners to approach the learned Single Judge seeking a direction upon the prescribed authority to complete the proceeding for removal of the Pradhan in terms of Section 12 of the Act.

2. In course of hearing of the case it was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by the Pradhan that, on an earlier occasion the writ petitioners had brought a motion of no-confidence on September 20, 2021, before the prescribed authority. Subsequently, some of the requisitionists withdrew from the requisition on the ground that the dispute between the said requisitionists and the Pradhan was resolved. In that view of the matter, the prescribed authority held that since the motion was not brought by at least 1/3rd of the existing members, the motion of no-confidence was not sustainable in the eye of law.

3. Learned Single Judge found that the facts with regard to the earlier requisition of September 20, 2021, and revocation of the same by the prescribed authority had been suppressed in the writ petition.

4. Learned Single Judge held that the conduct of the writ petitioners should not entitle them to obtain any order in their favour since there had been a material suppression of fact. Placing reliance upon two judgments reported at (2007) 8 SCC 449 (Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India) and (2008) 12 SCC 481 (K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited), learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

5. Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, submits that the prescribed authority should have convened a meeting in terms of Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, since the subsequent requisition was made by the required number of members of the relevant Panchayat.

6. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, withdrawal of the earlier requisition, by the majority members of the said Panchayat, was not a material fact and, therefore, the learned Single Judge should not have dismissed the writ petition. In support of his submission, Mr. Bhattacharya has relied upon a judgment reported at AIR 1979 S.C. 134 (Shri H.D. Vashishta v. M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I.) (P.) Ltd.).

7. Mr. Raja Saha, learned advocate appearing for the State, submits that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition since there is a bar of one year under Section 12 (11) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 to convene a fresh meeting, if the earlier requisition is not acted upon.

8. Mr. Saha submits that since the requisition made on September 20, 2021, was withdrawn by the majority of the requisitionists, the present requisition dated November 16, 2021, was barred under Section 12(11) of West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. Therefore, the writ petition has rightly been dismissed for suppression of facts.

9. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that if a litigant approaches the equitable jurisdiction of the writ court with unclean hands by suppressing a material fact, no relief can be given to him; but at the same time, the Court, before declining to grant any relief, should examine as to whether such fact is material or not.

10. A fact can be said to be material if the same has some bearing on the merit of the lis. In other words, the Court should be satisfied that if the suppressed fact had been disclosed, the outcome of the lis would have been otherwise.

11. In the present case, the requisition made on September 20, 2021, was withdrawn and, therefore, the prescribed authority did not convene any meeting in terms of Section 12 (3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.

12. In our view, the withdrawal of the requisition made on September 20, 2021, can