JUDGMENT :

1) In this instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged a notice dated 28th May, 2021 issued by the Prescribed Authority and the Block Development Officer (respondent no.3) under the provisions of Rule 5B of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1975 Rules’).

2) The petitioner’s case is as follows:-

a) The petitioner was elected as the Pradhan of Boyal-I, Gram Panchayat in the District of Purba Medinipur, being the respondent no.4 (hereinafter referred to as the said ‘Gram Panchayat’).

b) The respondent nos.5 to 13 are members of the said Gram Panchayat. The said respondent nos.5 to 13 have passed a motion of “No Confidence" for removal of the petitioner as the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat.

c) The respondent no.3 on receiving such a requisition pursuant to the motion of “No Confidence” taken by the said respondents issued the notice dated 28th May, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘notice’) for holding a meeting on 7th June, 2021 at 11:30 A.M at the Boyal-I Gram Panchayat Office.

d) The petitioner says that the respondent nos.5 to 13 were required to deliver a copy of the motion in person through any of the members or send it by Registered Post to the Prescribed Authority. One copy of the motion was required to be delivered to the petitioner either by hand or by Registered Post at the Gram Panchayat office and another copy was required to be sent by Registered Post at the petitioner’s residential address. This requirement according to the petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to the said ‘Act’) is a mandatory provision. No notice of such “No Confidence” motion was either delivered to the petitioner at the office of the said Gram Panchayat either by hand or by Registered Post. No copy of such “No Confidence” motion was also sent by Registered Post at the petitioner’s residential address.

e) The petitioner says that for non-compliance of such mandatory provision, no meeting could have been convened by the respondent no.3 as indicated in the said notice. Since, the mandatory requirement has not been complied with the said notice is in itself an invalid notice and no meeting can or could have been convened in terms thereof. Any decision taken at such meeting convened in terms of the said notice, according to the petitioner is void and invalid.

f) The petitioner also says that ignoring the present situation, owing to the pandemic, the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the order issued by the Government of West Bengal on 15th May, 2021 bearing no.647-ISS/2M-22/2020 through the Chief Secretary, the respondent no.3 has issued the notice to convey the meeting. The action of the respondent no. 3 is as such arbitrary.

g) The decision making process behind issuance of the said notice is as such faulted and should be interfered with. As a consequence thereof the said notice has to be quashed and /or set aside. The petitioner also relied upon a notice issued by the Prescribed Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur by which the meeting scheduled to be held on 21st May, 2021 at 11 AM in the Meeting Hall of Ghatal Panchayat Samiti for the removal of Sabhapati of Ghatal Panchayat Samiti was cancelled. The petitioner says that the respondent no.3 ought to have followed the procedure adopted by the Prescribed Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur and cancelled the meeting scheduled on 7th June, 2021. The petitioner also says that the Prescribed Authority Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur had cancelled the meeting in compliance of a direction issued by the District Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur under an Order bearing no. 491/PRD dated 19th May 2021 in adherence to the order dated 15th May, 2021 issued by the Government of West Bengal through the Chief Secretary. The petitioner says that the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur ought to have pas