Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) The writ petitioners before me are six members of Mahisbathan Gram Panchayat in the district of Malda, including the one who was elected as the 'Pradhan' of that Gram Panchayat.
(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioners seek to invalidate a resolution taken on 2nd September, 2014 for removal of the 'Pradhan' of the said Gram Panchayat and a notice dated 15th September, 2014 issued by the prescribed authority convening a meeting for consideration of the motion for election of a new 'Pradhan' and 'Upa-Pradhan' of that Panchayat. The requisition for removal of the 'Pradhan' was made by seven members of the Gram Panchayat by issuing a notice on 21st August, 2014. That notice is not specifically under challenge in this proceeding but to address the issues raised by the writ petitioners, legality of the requisition notice would also have to be addressed by this Court. In the writ petition, three-fold grounds have been raised challenging the resolution by which the 'Pradhan' was removed and the notice by which the meeting for removal of the 'Pradhan' was convened. The first ground is that the prescribed authority had not supplied the motion for removal of 'Pradhan' upon the members of the Panchayat nor the same was hung up on the notice board. The second ground is that the prescribed officer did not record his satisfaction as regards compliance of the requirements of Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The third ground is that the proceeding of the meeting was recorded by the Deputy Secretary of the Panchayat Samity, who was not authorised under the law to record such proceeding. The meeting for election of the new 'Pradhan' was scheduled to be held on 25th September, 2014 and this writ petition was filed on 19th September, 2014. This writ petition was taken up for hearing on 25th September, 2015 and an interim order was passed to the effect that the respondents were permitted to proceed on the basis of the notice dated 15th September, 2014 for electing a new 'Pradhan' but they were restrained from giving effect to the resolution of the said meeting, initially till 21st November, 2014. This interim order has since been extended from time to time. Two applications have been filed for vacating the interim order. The first application has been filed by ten members of the Gram Panchayat, which has been registered as C.A.N. No. 10790 of 2014. The second application has been filed by the Staterespondents which has been registered as C.A.N. No. 159 of 2015.
(3.) As regards the second ground which I have referred to above, the issue is no more res-integra as law has been settled on the question of recordal of satisfaction by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Kumar & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (W.P. No. 24555(W) of 2014) which was decided on 18th December, 2014. This decision was delivered on reference made to the Hon'ble Bench as two Hon'ble Judges of this Court differed on the issue of recordal of satisfaction before convening a meeting for removal of an office bearer of a panchayat. The Hon'ble Division Bench opined that no such satisfaction is required to be recorded and the task to be discharged by the prescribed authority, once a requisition notice is issued, is ministerial in nature. Thus there has been no infirmity on the part of the prescribed authority in convening the meeting. No such defect was also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioners in course of hearing, except non-supply of the motion on all the members of the Gram Panchayat.;