JUDGMENT :

1. Affidavit of service is taken on record.

2. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the State respondents.

3. The petitioners are the members of the Haribhanga Gram Panchayat, who had brought a requisition under Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’), requesting the prescribed authority to convene a meeting for removal of the pradhan of the said gram panchayat. The requisition was brought on July 28, 2021. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate, the prescribed authority called a meeting at his chamber for recording satisfaction with regard to the compliances under Section 12(2) of the said Act. Upon being so satisfied, the prescribed authority issued a notice under Form 1E, Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5B of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975, fixing August 13, 2021 as the date for holding the meeting for removal of the pradhan. On August 6, 2021, the prescribed authority issued a notice indicating that the meeting could not be held due to the pandemic situation. Mr. Bhattacharyya, is aggrieved by the postponement of the meeting. He further alleges that even if the meeting was postponed for a few days, the prescribed authority did not indicate the subsequent date for holding the meeting and the entire intention on the part of the prescribed authority was to frustrate the notice by lapse of time.

4. The prescribed authority strangely being a responsible and senior Government official ought to have applied his mind to the subsequent order of the Government of West Bengal dated July 29, 2021 with regard to setting out guidelines for programmes to be held keeping the safety measures in tact. From the said order it is apparent that meetings of such nature in Government offices and other Government functions and gatherings were allowed with 50% sitting capacity. In this case, the meeting sought to be held was in the official course of business of functioning of a gram panchayat. Such meetings are permissible as per the norms of the Government, and, as such, the decision of the prescribed authority is not supported by proper reasons and has not been based on appreciation of the actual facts. Thus, the contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya in this regard is accepted.

5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the pradhan, submits that the requisition contains a stigma.

6. The requisition which is in bengali read as a whole would indicate that the basis or the foundation of the no confidence was the apathy and inability of the pradhan to undertake developmental work for improvement of the locality.

7. In the decision of Ujjal Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2013 (1) CHN (CAL) 458, the Division Bench of this court held that requisition notice/no confidence motion was entertainable only when there was no foundation for bringing the motion. Paragraph 24 of the said decision is quoted below:

“24. Having regard to section 101 of the said Act, we are of the view that a ‘no confidence motion’ is entertainable for removal of Prodhan where there should not be any ground or foundation of bringing ‘no confidence motion’ and if ‘no confidence motion’ is carried on that ground, it will invite civil consequence or evil consequence to the Office Bearers relating to his political career naturally and as such, natural justice principle will have play in the matter, thereby a breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

8. This court in the matter of Sourendra Nath Das v. The State of West Bengal & ors. (WPA 11903 of 2021) held as follows:

“Having considered the submissions made by the petitioner and the learned advocates for the prescribed authority, this court is of the opinion that a reading of the requisition notice (which is in bengali), as a whole, would indicate that in the opinion of the members, the pradhan has proved to be incompetent as he did not perform his duties and developmental works, causing deprivation to the peo