- (1.) This mandamus appeal is at the instance of the private respondents in a writ-application and is directed against an order dated November 18, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship disposed of the said writ application by holding that the notice dated 23rd October, 2009 issued by the present appellants did not require the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat to convene a meeting in terms of section 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) Being dissatisfied, the private respondents have come up with the present appeal. The following facts are not in dispute: There are 13 elected members in the concerned Gram Panchayat, namely, Chandpur Gram Panchayat. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 were elected as the candidates of the Revolutionary Socialist Party and the appellant Nos.3 to 7 were elected as the Congress(I) candidates. The aforesaid 7 members, out of the total 13, being dissatisfied with the activities of the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat sent a notice on 23rd October, 2009 to the Pradhan thereby alleging 'no confidence' and asked him to call a meeting of the said Panchayat. In spite of receipt of such notice dated 23rd October, 2009, the Pradhan of the said Panchayat having failed to call any meeting as per demand, the appellants before us again sent a notice on 9th November, 2009 thereby requisitioning a meeting on 18th November, 2009 with the agenda of the removal of the Pradhan in terms of section 12 read with section 16 of the Act. In the meantime, the Pradhan on 29th October, 2009 moved a writ application before this Court being W.P. No.18530(W) of 2009 challenging the notice dated 23rd October, 2009, sent by the appellants out of which the present mandamus appeal arises. The learned Single Judge, as it appears from the order impugned, although, specifically recorded that no order should be passed on the said writ application, yet, in the body of the said order held that in the notice dated October 23, 2009 written by the appellants no request was made to the Pradhan to convene a meeting and as such, no question of convening a meeting at the instance of the Pradhan arose in terms of section 16 of the Act. Being dissatisfied, the private respondents have come up with the present appeal.
(3.) Mr. Sanyal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, vehemently contended before us that the learned Single Judge, while recording the finding that the notice dated October 23, 2009 did not require the Pradhan to convene a meeting as there was no request for holding such meeting, totally misread the contents thereof, particularly, the last sentence of the said notice where specific request was made for calling of a meeting in accordance with the Act. MR. Sanyal, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ application after setting aside the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. Mr. Bhattacharyya, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent, has, however, supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has contended that in the notice dated October 23,2009 there being no agenda of removal, the said requisition cannot be said to be one in terms of the second proviso to section 16 of the Act. Mr. Bhattacharyya, therefore, submits that there being no demand in terms of section 16 of the Act for removal, subsequent notice of requisition dated November 9, 2009 was illegal and the outcome of the meeting pursuant to such requisitioned meeting was also illegal. In this connection, Mr. Bhattacharyya has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kitabuddin Seikh vs. Daud Hossain and Ors.,1995 1 CLJ 198.;