- (1.) THE writ petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 30th June, 2001 passed by the Appellate Authority as also the order dated 7th May, 2010, passed by the Prescribed Authority. By virtue of the two impugned orders, the writ petitioners, who were elected members of Chandpur Gram Panchayat, stood removed from its membership, with effect from 6th May, 2010.
(2.) THE case of the writ petitioners is that on 6th OctobeT, 2009, the petitioner No. 1 called the writ petitioner No. 2 at her residence to take a decision regarding leaving the political party (Revolutionary Socialist Party) of which they were members on 15th October, 2009. A decision was taken by them to break away from the said political party. An affidavit was affirmed in that regard on 22nd October, 2009. Thereafter, a requisition was made for removal of the Pradhan and ultimately the Pradhan resigned from his post. The writ petitioner No. 1 was elected as the new Pradhan. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged by the private respondent No. 6 against the writ petitioner No. 1. The said complaint was heard and disposed of by an order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 7th May, 2010, rejecting the contentions of the writ petitioners and removing them from the membership of Chandpur Gram Panchayat. In appeal, the said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Thus, the two orders have now become the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ proceedings. According to the learned Advocate for the writ petitioners, on 15th October, 2009, at a meeting the writ petitioners resolved to break away from the Revolutionary Socialist Party. By using the word, 'Amra', the writ petitioners expressed their intention to constitute a group. The fact that the writ petitioners' were constituting a group would be evident from the complaint lodged jointly against them as well as from the common order passed against them by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority. This issue was specifically raised before the two authorities who had considered the same and rejected. He further submits that in the facts of the instant case, the complaint petition based on which the Prescribed Authority acted upon, was not in accordance with Rule 5 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Memberships' Disqualification) Rules, 1994. Unless the complaint petition referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 213A of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, conformed to the requirements, of Rule 5 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Memberships' Disqualification) Rules, 1994, the decision rendered thereupon by the Prescribed Authority would be without jurisdiction. In this context, he relies on the following two judgments of this Court : (1) Md. Abu Sattar Molla v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (1997)1 Cal HN 59 (para 9); (2) Akbar Hossain v. District Panchayat Officer & Ors., (2001)2 Cal LJ 299 (para 8).
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Advocate representing the private respondent No. 6 submits that the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, or the Rules framed thereunder does not bar filing of a single complaint against the members. The filing of a joint complaint will not amount to treating the members as a group. At the meeting held on 15th October, 2009, the writ petitioners sought to break away from the political party to which they belonged. Their breaking away was purely voluntary in nature and no claim was made by the writ petitioners regarding constitution of a factional group. He further submits that the defence of sub-section (b) to the second proviso under Section 213A of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, cannot come to the aid of the writ petitioners.. So far as the jurisdictional aspect of the complaint is concerned, he submits that the question of maintainability of the complaint raised before this Court was not taken in the objection filed on their behalf at any stage of the proceedings before the authorities.;