The main legal point established is the distinction between Section 213 and Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, and the court's emphasis on stability in Gram Panchayats and efficient local self-government.

JUDGMENT :

1. Affidavit-of-Service filed in Court today be taken on record.

2. By consent of the parties, the appeal and the application are taken up together for hearing.

3. A judgment and order dated November 23, 2022, whereby WPA 25688 of 2022 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

4. The appellant herein is the Pradhan of Mahishbathani Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has 17 members presently. 12 of the members have made a representation to the Prescribed Authority seeking removal of the appellant as Pradhan in exercise of the Prescribed Authority’s power under Section 213 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter ‘1973 Act’).

5. Alleging inaction on the part of the Prescribed Authority, who is the Commissioner of Panchayat and Rural Development, Government of West Bengal, those members approached the learned Single Judge, contending that the representation made by them was not receiving the attention of the Prescribed Authority. Various allegations were made against the appellant herein in such representation and primarily, of dereliction of duty on the part of the Pradhan. The crux of the grievance of the writ petitioners was that the Pradhan was not discharging her functions required by the provisions of the 1973 Act and/or the rules framed thereunder.

6. Before the learned Single Judge, learned advocate for the Pradhan argued and before us also, the same argument has been advanced that by taking recourse to Section 213 of the 1973 Act, the provisions of Section 12 of that Act cannot be given a go-by and/or cannot be overridden. The learned Judge, however, held that Section 12 and Section 213 operate at different levels and in different fields. While Section 12 contains a provision for removal of the Pradhan by a majority of members, if the majority has lost confidence in such Pradhan, Section 213 empowers the Prescribed Authority to remove the Pradhan if it is found that he/she has wilfully omitted or refused to carry out the provisions of the 1973 Act or any rules or orders made thereunder or abuses the power vested in him or her under the 1973 Act. Before making any such order, however, the Prescribed Authority must give to the person concerned, i.e., the Pradhan, an opportunity of making a representation against the proposed order. This provision recognizes the principles of natural justice and in particular, audi alteram partem.

7. Having held that the provisions of Section 213 of 1973 Act is distinct and separate from Section 12 of the 1973 Act, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:

“The Commissioner being the prescribed authority is directed to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Pradhan and any other person or member whose presence or statements may be necessary for complete adjudication of the issues involved and in order to do substantial justice. The application shall be disposed of within a period of six weeks from the date or receipt of the written objection of the Pradhan.

Needless to mention, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the factual allegations which have been levelled against the Pradhan. The Pradhan shall be entitled to file a written objection to the representation within a period of 10 days from date. A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the parties.”

8. Being aggrieved, the Pradhan has come up before us by way of this appeal.

9. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Galib, learned advocate, has strenuously argued that the writ petitioners have attempted in a circuitous manner to achieve what they cannot do under Section 12 of the 1973 Act. This is because the appellant was elected as Pradhan after removal of the earlier Pradhan, only in September 2021. The appellant took the chair of Pradhan on October 01, 2021. Section 12(12) of the 1973 Act reads as follows:

“12(12) Notwithst