Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) A resolution for removal of the Prodhan has since been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) Mr. Kashi Kanta Moitra, the learned Senior Counsel had taken a ground that 3 of the members were disqualified and as such they could not participate in the meeting for removal of Prodhan. Admittedly, the said 3 members have not yet been declared disqualified. Therefore, they cannot be precluded from participating in such meeting as was held in the decision in the Case of Anil Singha v. The State of W. B. & Ors. ( A. S. T. No. 2894 of 2000 ) disposed of on 14th August, 2000.
(3.) Mr. Moitra had assailed the resolution on 3 grounds. First, that the notice requiring the Prodhan to hold a meeting for removal of the Prodhan was never served upon the Prodhan and two other members of the Gram Panchayat. According to him, unless there is a notice requiring the Prodhan to convene a meeting for the purpose of removal of a Prodhan, it is not open to the requisitionists to convene a meeting. Unless the first notice is there the second notice fails. In the present case, in the absence of service of notice, the meeting cannot be held. Relying on Rule 7 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 1981 in case all the members are not served in that event the meeting has to be adjourned. In the present case, despite non-serviCe of notice upon two of the members the meeting was not adjourned and as such the resolution adopted in such meeting cannot be sustained in law.;