Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner who is a Pradhan of Murarisha Gram Panchayat, P. O. Burarisha, Dist. 24-Parganas (North), has filed this writ application challenging the impugned notice dated 6.6.95 as contained in Annexure 'A' to the writ application.
(2.) Mr. J. Islam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has raised a short question in support of bis contention. The learned Counsel contends that a bare perusal of the said notice would demonstrate that the same is vague and does not Satisfy the requirements of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the said Act). The learned Counsel submits that a statutory authority must act strictly in conformity with the statute and in support of the aforementioned proposition he has relied in on a decision in the case of P. N. Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal reported in 70 CWN 503. The learned Counsel further has relied upon a decision in the case of R. C. Sood v. Asst. Settlement Officer reported in 76 CWN 149. It was further submitted that all statutory requirements should be complied with before passing the order. The learned Counsel has also relied upon a decision in the case to Ramchandra v. Govind reported in AIR 1975 SC 915. It was however submitted that it there is repugnancy between Section 12 and Section 16 of the Act the same should be reasonably construed. In support of his aforementioned contention the learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of P. Mahato v. State of West Bengal reported in 90 CWN 74.
(3.) The impugned notice as contained in Annexure 'A' to the writ application reads thus:- VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITTED;