Adherence to the statutory period and procedure as prescribed by the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated February 11, 2022, issued by the prescribed authority under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5B of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said rules’). The petitioner is the pradhan of Tenkaripur-Balumati Gram Panchayat. The petitioner has alleged that the prescribed authority has acted in violation of the provisions of Sections 12(3), 12(4) and 12(10) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’), and issued the notice convening the meeting for removal of the pradhan beyond the statutory period of 30 days. Allegations are that the prescribed authority has acted in flagrant violation of the statute. It is prayed that the notice dated February 11, 2022 and the meeting dated February 23, 2022 be cancelled.

2. Mr. Betal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the requisitionists, submits that the situation was beyond the control of the prescribed authority and thus the authority could not convene the meeting in terms of Sections 12(3), 12(4) and 12(10) of the said Act. He submits that the provisions of Section 12(4) and Section 12(10), enabled the prescribed authority to hold a meeting beyond 30 days. In this case, the meeting has been fixed on the 38th day from the date of receipt of the requisition. It is submitted by him that in the matter of Rasida Bibi vs. The State of West Bengal in MAT 652 of 2021, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that surge in the Covid-19 infections could be taken as reasons beyond the control of the prescribed authority in failing to hold the meeting within 15 working days from the receipt of the requisition. It was further held that such a meeting could be held even beyond the expiry of the statutory period of thirty days on a combined reading of Sections 12(4) and 12(10) of the said Act. According to the Hon’ble Division Bench, Section 12(10) would be controlled by the provisions of Section 12(4). In the event the situation was beyond the control of the prescribed authority and the meeting had to be postponed or cancelled, the meeting could also be held beyond 30 days. The only distinguishing factor in this case is that there was no notice under Section 12(3) and as such, the decision of Rsida Bibi (supra) would not apply.

3. Section 12(4) of the said Act provides that a meeting shall be held within 15 working days and shall not be adjourned or cancelled except for reasons beyond control. In this case, no meeting was called, no date was fixed and, as such, the action of the prescribed authority in this regard cannot not be condoned by application of Section 12(4). The prescribed authority had not even exercised his power under Section 12(3). In this case, the law makes a fine distinction. When the law prescribes a particular procedure must be followed, the statute book has to be followed in its letter and spirit. The court cannot extend the time beyond 5 working days under Section 12(3) of the said Act for issuance of the notice convening the meeting. The law provides that the meeting can be adjourned or postponed for reasons beyond control as per Section 12(4). The first ingredient of this section is that a meeting should be convened within 5 working days and the date of the meeting must be fixed not later than 15 working days from receipt of the motion. Thereafter, the meeting so fixed may be adjourned or cancelled for reasons beyond the control of the authority. In this case, the requisition was received and immediately deferred. The petitioners objected to the same.

4. In the decision of Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) 1 Ch.D, 426, 431, it has been held that when the law prescribes that a certain act must be performed in a certain way; such act has to be performed in the specified manner and not in any other manner. The principle was followed by the Indian Courts in the decision of Nazir Ahmad v. The King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253; and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Si