LAWS(CAL)-2012-2-13

MD ALI REZA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On February 23, 2012
MD.ALI REZA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are elected members of Rudranagar Gram Panchayat situated in the district of Birbhum. On 7th December, 2011, the petitioners served a notice as per provision of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to-date), for holding a meeting for removal of the present Pradhan of their Gram Panchayat. The Prescribed Authority, being the Block Development Officer, Murarai-II Development Block, by a memo dated 8th December, 2011, intimated the writ petitioners that no meeting for removal of the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat could be held upto 22nd March, 2012, since a meeting convened in respect of a non-confidence motion for removal of present Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was earlier held on 22nd March, 2011, and by virtue of sub-section (11) of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to-date), no notice of any subsequent motion for removal of the same office bearer can be taken into cognizance within a period of one year from the date appointed for such meeting.

(2.) It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 22nd March, 2011, there was, in fact, no meeting since no elected members of the Gram Panchayat were present on that day at the appointed hour and place. In this regard, he has relied on the extract of the meeting dated 22nd March, 2011, which the writ petitioners obtained, upon invocation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(3.) On the other hand, learned senior counsel representing the respondent No.6, being the Pradhan of Rudranagar Gram Panchayat, refers to the same extract and submits that a meeting was called on 22nd March, 2011, but the same could not be held for want of quorum. As such, he submits that sub-section (11) of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to-date), is squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case and there is no infirmity of reasoning in the impugned memo dated 8th December, 2011, issued by the Prescribed Authority.