JUDGMENT

(Amarnath Goud, ACJ)

Heard Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Petitioners, have filed this writ petition for quashing the declarations dated 20.09.2021 issued by the respondent no. 3 alongwith the illegal papers and references of respondent no. 4 and for allowing the petitioners to work as Members of West Kuchainala Gram Panchayat.

3. The facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the elected members of West Kuchainala Gram Panchayat from a particular political party and they have unanimously elected Smt. Rubi Das as Pradhan and the petitioner no. 1 herein as Upa-Pradhan. Due to dissatisfaction of the works and activities of Pradhan in execution of the development works of gram panchayat, the petitioners being majority of six members out of nine proposed to remove the Pradhan and accordingly, respondent no. 2, District Panchayat Officer held a meeting on 23.04.2021 and thereby, on being found majority of the petitioners took decision for removal of the Pradhan. Thereafter, by a memorandum dated 14.09.2021, respondent no. 3 sought for some clarification from the petitioners herein, reply of which had been submitted by the petitioners on 20.09.2021 stating inter alia that there was no whip/direction in the hands of the petitioners, but suddenly on

24.09.2021, respondent no. 3 issued a Declaration declaring that the petitioners have earned disqualification and thereby ceased to be a member of the gram panchayat. It is the further case of the petitioner that prior to the meeting dated 23.04.2021, no Whip or direction was served upon the petitioner.

4. During arguments, Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that there was no communication on the part of respondent no. 3 for issuance of party whip. Mr. Das, learned counsel has further argued that mere reading of the party whip cannot substitute the communication of the party whip to the elected members of the gram panchayat. Mr. Das, learned counsel has also argued that since whip was not served upon the petitioners prior to commencement of the election process, the ceasing of the membership of the petitioners cannot sustain as per law. Learned counsel has also argued that before issuing disqualification certificate, a proceeding is required to be initiated against the disqualified members, but no proceeding has been initiated and respondent no. 3 whimsically has disqualified the petitioners from being members of the gram panchayat. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no proof that party whip was served upon the petitioners. According to Mr. Das, learned counsel, party whip must have been served on the petitioners before commencement of the election proceedings and their disqualification. Learned counsel has lastly argued that the impugned declaration order dated 24.09.2021 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) ceasing the membership of the petitioners of the gram panchayat be quashed/set aside.

5. Controverting the submissions of learned counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA has submitted that the petitioners have violated the party whip by casting their votes. Mr. Bhattacharjee, has also submitted that since the petitioners have violated the party whip they have earned disqualification under Section 16 of the Tripura Panchayat Act (for short, the Act). Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned GA has also submitted that the party whip was read over to the petitioners and they have put their signatures on the minutes. Lastly, learned GA has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned declaration dated 24.09.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3.

6. The disqualification of the petitioners and ceasing them to be members of the Gram Panchayat relate to Section 16 of the Tripura Panchayat Act, 1993, which reads as under:-

“16. (1) A member of a Gram Panchayat belonging to