Arindam Mukherjee,J. - (1.) In this instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged a notice dated 28th May, 2021 issued by the Prescribed Authority and the Block Development Officer (respondent no.3) under the provisions of Rule 5B of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the '1975 Rules').
(2.) The petitioner's case is as follows:- a) The petitioner was elected as the Pradhan of Boyal-I, Gram Panchayat in the District of Purba Medinipur, being the respondent no.4 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Gram Panchayat'). b) The respondent nos.5 to 13 are members of the said Gram Panchayat. The said respondent nos.5 to 13 have passed a motion of "No Confidence" for removal of the petitioner as the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat. c) The respondent no.3 on receiving such a requisition pursuant to the motion of "No Confidence" taken by the said respondents issued the notice dated 28th May, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the 'notice') for holding a meeting on 7th June, 2021 at 11:30 A.M at the Boyal-I Gram Panchayat Office. d) The petitioner says that the respondent nos.5 to 13 were required to deliver a copy of the motion in person through any of the members or send it by Registered Post to the Prescribed Authority. One copy of the motion was required to be delivered to the petitioner either by hand or by Registered Post at the Gram Panchayat office and another copy was required to be sent by Registered Post at the petitioner's residential address. This requirement according to the petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to the said 'Act') is a mandatory provision. No notice of such "No Confidence" motion was either delivered to the petitioner at the office of the said Gram Panchayat either by hand or by Registered Post. No copy of such "No Confidence" motion was also sent by Registered Post at the petitioner's residential address. e) The petitioner says that for non-compliance of such mandatory provision, no meeting could have been convened by the respondent no.3 as indicated in the said notice. Since, the mandatory requirement has not been complied with the said notice is in itself an invalid notice and no meeting can or could have been convened in terms thereof. Any decision taken at such meeting convened in terms of the said notice, according to the petitioner is void and invalid. f) The petitioner also says that ignoring the present situation, owing to the pandemic, the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the order issued by the Government of West Bengal on 15th May, 2021 bearing no.647-ISS/2M-22/2020 through the Chief Secretary, the respondent no.3 has issued the notice to convey the meeting. The action of the respondent no. 3 is as such arbitrary. g) The decision making process behind issuance of the said notice is as such faulted and should be interfered with. As a consequence thereof the said notice has to be quashed and /or set aside. The petitioner also relied upon a notice issued by the Prescribed Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur by which the meeting scheduled to be held on 21st May, 2021 at 11 AM in the Meeting Hall of Ghatal Panchayat Samiti for the removal of Sabhapati of Ghatal Panchayat Samiti was cancelled. The petitioner says that the respondent no.3 ought to have followed the procedure adopted by the Prescribed Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur and cancelled the meeting scheduled on 7th June, 2021. The petitioner also says that the Prescribed Authority Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur had cancelled the meeting in compliance of a direction issued by the District Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur under an Order bearing no. 491/PRD dated 19th May 2021 in adherence to the order dated 15th May, 2021 issued by the Government of West Bengal through the Chief Secretary. The petitioner says that the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur ought to have passed a similar order like his counterpart in Paschim Medinipur for cancelling the meeting. The petitioner has also referred to a further order dated 29th May, 2021 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal extending the order dated 15th May, 2020 till 15th June, 2021 to urge that even on 7th June, 2021 the restrictions were in force. h) The petitioner relying upon the Government Orders and the cancellation memo issued by the Prescribed Authority Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur says that the respondent no.3 instead of acting impartially and independently which the said respondent is bound to do and has failed to act impartially. The respondent no.3 has acted in a biased manner to side the respondent nos.5 to 13 in order to give them undue advantage. The respondent no.3 according to the petitioner derives power under the said Act and is as such required to act fairly and transparently. The entire act of the respondent no.3 is arbitrary and as such is required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. i) The petitioner also says that the petitioner is not avoiding to face the "No Confidence" motion but, the situation at the present is as such that the meeting scheduled on 7th June, 2021 ought to have been cancelled.
(3.) Respondents' Case:- a) On behalf of the State respondents (respondent nos.1 to 3), it is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner cannot stall a "No Confidence" motion against him by challenging the notice for holding of a meeting pursuant to a requisition made after the respondent nos.5 to 13 has passed a motion of "No Confidence". The petitioner had been appointed as Pradhan by the respondent nos.5 to 13 and as such they can pass a "No Confidence" motion to remove the petitioner if the majority of the members have lost confidence in the petitioner as the Pradhan. b) The petitioner can be removed by a majority of members following the procedure laid down in Section 12 of the said Act. Following such provisions, the respondent nos.5 to 13 have passed a "No Confidence" motion as against the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefor, liable to be removed. Upon realising that his removal is inevitable, the petitioner is attempting to raise frivolous technical grounds to invite interference from this Court. On the issue that the petitioner can be removed and is not entitled to seek intervention of this Court against such "No Confidence" motion for petitioner's removal the State respondents have cited the judgments reported in [ Usha Bharti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , 2014 7 SCC 663], [ Sujata Bhachhar (Kirtonia) vs. The State of West Bengal and Others , 2017 2 CalHN 103] and the judgement reported in [ Ujjwal Kumar Singha vs. The State of West Bengal and Others , 2017 2 CalHN 258]. The said respondents have also relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court passed in FMA 1209 of 2015, MAT 242 of 2015 with CAN 1814 of 2015 (Panchu Mandal vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.,2016 SCCOnlineCal 4950) for the said proposition. c) The State respondents also submit that the petitioner was neither available in the office of the said Panchayat to receive hand service of the motion nor had authorized anyone to receive the same. The respondent nos.5 to 13 on being unsuccessful have despatched the copy of the motion to the petitioner for being served by registered post at the office of the said Gram Panchayat. A copy of the motion has also been sent through registered post to the petitioner's residence by the respondent nos.5 to 13. It, however, appears from the submission. d) The State respondents further submit that the meeting as scheduled on 7th June, 2021 has been convened. In the said meeting the majority of members of the said Gram Panchayat have voted for removal of the petitioner. The decision in the meeting held on 7th June, 2021 has not been published or been given effected to in view of the interim order dated 4th June, 2021. The said respondents also stated that this Court was not inclined to stop the meeting scheduled on 7th June, 2021 as will appear from the Order dated 4th June, 2021 which prima facie establish that this Court was not in favour of the petitioner. The State respondents, therefore, pray for dismissal of the writ petition. ;