- (1.) Instead of hearing the stay application, with the consent of the parties, we have taken up the appeal itself for final disposal by treating it as on day's list.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21st December, 2009 of the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are removed from the office of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan by passing of vote of no confidence as contemplated by Sections 12 and 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The five appellants herein served requisition notice dated 27th October, 2009 under Sections 12 and 16 of the Act expressing no confidence against the Pradhan and Upa-pradhan. On failure of the Pradhan to convene a meeting, two separate and independent notices dated 12th November, 2009 were issued under Section 16 of the Act. By one notice dated 12th November, 2009, the meeting was convened on 23rd November, 2009 for discussing the motion of no confidence against the Pradhan. By the other notice dated 12th November, 2009, the meeting of the Panchayat was convened on 24th November, 2009 for discussing the motion of no confidence against the Upa-Pradhan. The requisite number of members passed the vote of no confidence against the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan at two separate meetings held on 23rd and 24th November, 2009 respectively. The Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan against whom the resolutions were passed, as aforesaid, moved the learned Single Judge in one writ petition challenging the resolutions passed against them only on the ground that only one notice dated October 27, 2009 was issued for removal of both the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan. The learned Single Judge accepted the said contention by relying on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in {In re: Mihir Mondal & Ors., 1994 1 CalHN 423) and allowed the writ petition after holding that removal of both the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan could not have been done by one notice and ought to have been done by two separate and independent notices. Accordingly, the notice dated 27th October, 2009 came to be quashed and also all the consequential steps then thereafter. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the notice dated October 27, 2009 was only a requisition notice, but thereafter, two separate and independent notices were issued for convening two separate meetings on 23rd and 24th November, 2009 for removal of Pradhan and Upa- Pradhan respectively. After distinguishing the decision reported in 1994 1 CalHN 423 reliance is placed on the decision in Samar Samanta &Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.,1996 101 CalWN 294 in support of the submission that where the common requisition notice is followed by two separate notices convening two separate meetings, there is no illegality in the procedure.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the case at hand is not governed by the decision relied upon by the learned Single Judge. On the contrary, in Samar Samanta s case,1996 101 CalWN 294 it has been rightly held that:- "15.........the requisition in writing to convene a meeting under Section 12 of the Act is not at all a notice of meeting because by such requisition it is not known whether Pradhan will call the meeting or the members will have to call the meeting on the failure of the Pradhan to call such meeting. 16.......This requisition in writing is not itself a notice of meeting for the purpose of removal of Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat. 18........though the requisition in writing forms the initial move for calling meeting under Section 12 of the Act but the proceeding subsequent thereto are to be considered in the light of the law prescribed therefor but not purely on the basis either of the contents or of the forms of the requisition for which no law has been prescribed in the Statute.";