02.12.2025

sayandeep

Sl. No. 09 Ct. No. 03

WPA 27315 of 2025

Sri Swapan Kumar Nayak

Vs.

State of West Bengal & ors.

Mr. Jayanta Kr. Das

Ms. MAdhumanti Das

….for the petitioner

Mr. Soumitra Bandopadhyay Mr. Subhasis Bandopadhyay

….. for the State

Mr. Subir Sanyal., Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sk. Sahjahan

….. for the respondent Nos. 12 to 17

Mr. Debasish Das

…. for the respondent Nos. 18 to 24

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia,

challenging the submission of a no-confidence motion by way of a letter against the Chairman, Egra municipality, dated 20th November, 2025. The petitioner would complain that previously a letter to initiate no-confidence motion was issued on 2nd September, 2024 against the Chairman of Egra municipality by certain councilors. Later such notice

was withdrawn.

2. On this occasion, since the no-confidence motion has

not been withdrawn, the petitioner has approached this Court to challenge the legality and validity of such notice. The petitioner is supported by 7 several councilors who have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 18 to 24. The petitioner has, however, raised a legal contention and would contend that the above

requisition notice which has been issued against the petitioner is not a requisition for no-confidence motion simplisitor but is a charge made against the petitioner with regard to alleged unethical activities and negligence in rending municipal services. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid requisition is stigmatic and as such the aforesaid requisition is not a valid requisition for initiating a no-confidence motion under Section 18(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), for removal of the Chairman from office. The learned advocate for the petitioner would contend that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature and as such ordinarily, the same should not be permitted to be included in a no- confidence motion where the petitioner does not get an opportunity to respond to the same.

3. In support of his aforesaid contention he has placed reliance on two several Judgments delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ujjal Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2013(1) CHN (CAL) 458 and in the case of Razia Sultana v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in AIR 2023 Calcutta 189

4. Mr. Sanyal, learned sr. advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 12 to 17. He would by placing before this Court the unreported Judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Swapan Kumar Nayak vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. in WPA(P)/385/2024 dated 12th September, 2024 submit that the Division Bench of this Court had noted that if the petitioner is unable to exercise his power of the Chairman in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Municipal Act, then he is unfit to continue as a Chairman of the municipality.

5. According to Mr. Sanyal, since the Court itself had issued a declaration that the petitioner is unfit to such post and since, the aforesaid order has not been challenged by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot complain that the requisition notice which is impugned in this petition, is stigmatic.

6. While responding to the above, the learned advocates representing the petitioner and respondent Nos. 18 to 24 would jointly submit that in different set of facts, the above Judgment in the case of Swapan Kumar Nayak (supra) was delivered. The same has no bearing on a requisition notice issued for seeking no confidence which is stigmatic.

7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I find that the requisition notice that has been issued seeking to move a no-confidence motion against the petitioner identifies and charges the petitioner of various illegal, unethical activities and negligence in rendering municipal service.

8. Having regard thereto, it cannot be said that the above requisition notice is not stigmatic. I fin