Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day s list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay and disposed of as follows:-
(2.) The impugned judgment and order dated 12th August, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge reads as follows:- Let the affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record. Heard Mr. Bhattacharyya, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Gupta, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents as well as Mr. Bhattacharyya, the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 7. The petitioner is the Pradhan of Krishnachandrapur Gram Panchayat. He challenges the notice of meeting on motion issued by the prescribed authority, i.e. the respondent no. 4 herein on the ground that the requisitionists had not sent any notice to the petitioner in terms of Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act. He had collected on copy from the office of the prescribed authority. The other point of challenge is that the notice of meeting on motion was delivered to the petitioner on August 6, 2016 and the meeting has been held on August 12, 2016 thereby violating the provisions of Section 12(3) of the said Act. Mr. Gupta has right now no instruction. He prays for some accommodation to obtain the relevant instruction from the appropriate authority. The respondent no. 4 is directed to file a report in the form of an affidavit in response to the grounds of challenge to the holding of the meeting on motion on the next date of hearing. The report must specifically disclose how the prescribed authority satisfied himself about the compliance of the requirement of Sections 12(2) and (3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act. I have been informed by Mr. Bhattacharyya that a meeting had actually been held on August 12, 2016 at 2 p.m. and the petitioner has been removed. Since I am prima facie satisfied about the statements made by the petitioner in the writ petition which he has affirmed as true to his knowledge I am of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case of the grant of an interim order. In such view of it the respondent no. 4 shall not give any further effect to the result of the meeting held today, inasmuch as he shall restrain himself from holding any further meeting for the election of the new Pradhan, till September 2, 2016 or until any other order whichever is earlier. Let this matter appear in the Supplementary List on August 26, 2016. The petitioner is directed to communicate the gist of the order to the respondent no. 4 forthwith and the respondent no. 4 shall act on such communication without insisting on production of a certified copy of the order.
(3.) The appellants before this Court were the private respondent nos. 7 to 13 before the learned Single Judge. The appellants as requisitionists signed a motion in writing expressing their lack of confidence against the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat. A copy of such motion was delivered to the Prescribed Authority, as also the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the notice was never sent to the writ petitioner, being the Pradhan, in terms of section 12 (2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act. The Pradhan had collected one copy of the notice from the office of the Prescribed Authority.;