Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) WHEN the writ petition was initially moved before this Court, upon hearing the learned advocates for the petitioner and the State, the following order was passed on 6th October, 2010: - Prima facie, the Memo dated 23rd June, 2010 cannot be supported as the meeting was to be held on 4th June, 2010 at 11.30 a.m. as a requisitioned meeting. On a query raised by the prescribed authority with the Secretary In -Charge of the concerned Gram Panchayat the Secretary In -Charge reported that the observer attended the said meeting at 12.30 p.m. As the meeting was to be held at 11.30 a.m., the late coming of the observer cannot regularize his presence at the said meeting. It is on the basis of the resolution taken at the meeting held on 4th June, 2010 that the Memo. Dated 23rd June, 2010 which had been issued for the reasons set out above cannot be supported prima facie. Accordingly, the Memo. Dated 23rd June, 2010 is stayed till six weeks alter the long vacation. Direction is given for filing affidavits by the parties. Let affidavit -in -opposition be filed within two weeks after the long vacation; reply thereto, if any, be filed within a week thereafter. Matter to appear in the list four weeks after the long vacation. At that point of time, admittedly, the private respondent no. 8 was not served. Subsequently an application, being CAN 9557 of 2010, was moved by the private respondent No. 8 seeking vacation of the ad interim order dated 6th October, 2010, and an order was passed on 24th December, 2010, in connection with the said application. However, the order dated 6th October, 2010, was not vacated by the Court. Aggrieved, the private respondent No. 8 preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, however, did not intervene and remanded the matter before the First Court.
(2.) THE writ petition now comes up for final disposal. It is the specific contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the memo dated 23rd June, 2010, issued by the Prescribed Authority, whereby and whereunder his client was sought to be removed as Pradhan of Paharpur Gram Panchayat, is unsustainable in law. He further submits that the subsequent memo dated 12th July, 2010, issued by the Prescribed Authority for election of a new Pradhan is also bad in law.
(3.) IT is the case of the writ petitioner that initially a requisition meeting was called by seven members of the Gram Panchayat to remove him as the Pradhan, based on which the Prescribed Authority had fixed 4th June, 2010, as the date for holding such meeting. However, he had submitted his resignation as Pradhan on 3rd June, 2010. As a result, on 4th June, 2010, a directive was issued by the Prescribed Authority, vide memo No. 1773(5)/XIX, not to hold the requisition meeting on 4th June. 2010. This memo No. 1773(5)/XIX, was, however, subsequently cancelled on that very day itself by another memo bearing No. 1779/XIX, in view of withdrawal of resignation by the Pradhan on 3rd June, 2010. It was followed by another memo bearing No. 1780/XIX issued by the Prescribed Authority on 4th June, 2010, whereby the Upa -Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat was requested to convene a General Body Meeting for acceptance of the writ petitioner's resignation, on basis whereof, on 8th June, 2010, a notice was issued by the Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat for convening a meeting on 18th June, 2010, for the purpose of taking a decision on the resignation letter tendered by the writ petitioner as Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat. This notice was challenged in an earlier writ petition, being W.P. 12615 (W) of 2010, wherein an order was passed on 12th July, 2010, relevant portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow: - ...Having considered the submissions of the parties, the withdrawal of resignation by the petitioner -Pradhan was on 3rd June, 2010 and on receipt of such letter of withdrawal the earlier Memo, issued being Memo. No. 1773 (5)/XIX was cancelled by the prescribed authority by Memo. No. 1779/XIX. On cancellation of Memo. No. 1773 (5) XIX the petitioner could have functioned as a Pradhan. Therefore, Memo. No. 1780/XIX dated 4th June, 2010 in view of the cancellation cannot be regarded as justified as unless the Pradhan is removed in accordance with law, the question of convening a General Body Meeting for appointment of a new Pradhan cannot arise. Accordingly, the Memo. No. 1780/XIX and the subsequent notice issued thereunder are bad and accordingly set aside.;