BISWANATH SOMADDER,J. - (1.) The appeal along with the application for stay is taken up for consideration upon treating the same as on day's list. The appellant has approached this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 5th February, 2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 28747 (W) of 2014, whereby his writ petition was dismissed. The subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge was a notice dated 13th October, 2014, issued by the Prescribed Authority convening a meeting for electing a new Pradhan. The facts of the case - as narrated in the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge - reveal that the writ petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Beonta -I Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, on 27th August, 2014, six members of the said Gram Panchayat requisitioned a meeting for removal of the Pradhan. On 16th September, 2014, the Prescribed Authority convened the meeting for consideration of the motion for removal of/lack of confidence against the Pradhan. That meeting was fixed on 25th September, 2014. The notices convening the meeting was challenged by the writ petitioner in an earlier proceeding, which was registered as WP 27731 (W) of 2014. That writ petition, however, was dismissed by another learned Single Judge, in terms of an order passed on 26th September, 2014.
(2.) Before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner - being the appellant herein - had contended during the course of hearing that an appeal had been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26th September, 2014, by which the earlier writ petition was dismissed and the said appeal was pending before an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The learned Single Judge has ascribed the following reasons in the impugned judgment and order while dismissing the writ petition: - "In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the validity of a notice dated 13th October, 2014 issued by the Prescribed Authority convening a meeting for electing a new 'Pradhan'. Submission of the petitioner is that the said notice of 13th October, 2014 constitutes a fresh cause of action and on this count, he seeks to sustain maintainability of the writ petition. So far as the notice dated 13th October, 2014 is concerned, no allegation of fatality is asserted specifically against this notice. Submission of the petitioner is that the steps which were taken prior to issue of this notice are not valid in law as the earlier notices were not served on the 'Pradhan', being the petitioner herein. I have gone through a copy of the writ petition registered as W.P. No.27731 (W) of 2014, which has been made available before this Court by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the State. I find on going through that petition that the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority convening the meeting was under challenge in that proceeding. Subsequently, the meeting has been held and the motion for removal of 'Pradhan' has been carried through by majority of the members. Thus the condition precedent for issuing the notice for electing a new 'Pradhan' appears to stand satisfied. Mr. Saha Roy argued that the decision in W.P. No. 27731 (W) of 2014 was rendered considering the provisions of sub -section (1) of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 whereas in this proceeding he was questioning the validity of the requisition notice as also the notice convening the meeting on the basis of default made in complying with the provisions of sub -section (2) of Section 12 of the said Act. In my opinion, so far as the notices dated 27th August, 2013 and 16th September, 2013 are concerned, no new ground can be permitted to be urged challenging the validity of the said two notices. Such a course would be impermissible under the principles of constructive res judicata. So far as the notice dated 22nd October, 2014 is concerned, I do not find any flaw pertaining to this notice, independent of the flaws alleged in relation to the notice for requisition and the notice for convening the meeting for Removal of 'Pradhan'. Thus, so far as the plea of new cause of action is concerned, the only subsequent event which has been referred to is issue of the aforesaid notice for electing a new 'Pradhan'. I do not find any deficiency in the said notice, independent of the defects alleged in respect of the earlier two notices, which were issued prior to institution of the writ petition being W.P. No. 27731(W) of 2014. For reason which I have indicated in the earlier part of this judgment, there is no scope for embarking upon an enquiry in relation to the earlier notices. The instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed". This Court, upon perusal of the reasons provided by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, does not find any palpable infirmity which would warrant any interference by a Court of Appeal. It may not be out of context to observe that institutions such as a Gram Panchayat must run on democratic principles. In democracy, all persons heading such public bodies can continue to hold office provided they enjoy the confidence of the persons who comprise of such bodies. This is the essence of the democratic republicanism. In this context, one may take notice of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usha Bharti v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC 1686. In the facts of the instant case there is no manner of doubt whatsoever that the appellant/writ petitioner has been removed as Pradhan by a majority vote. The appellant had earlier approached the writ Court by filing WP 27731 (W) of 2014, challenging the requisition notice of the members of the concerned Gram Panchayat as well as the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority convening the meeting for consideration of the motion for removal of /lack of confidence against the Pradhan, being the appellant herein. That writ petition was dismissed on 26th September, 2014. The subsequent notice issued by the Prescribed Authority, being a notice dated 13th October, 2014, became the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ proceeding, which culminated in the impugned order of dismissal of the writ petition passed by the learned Single Judge on 5th February, 2015. The conduct of the appellant/writ petitioner leaves no manner of doubt whatsoever that instead of adhering to and abiding by the established democratic principles governing institutions such as a Gram Panchayat, he has chosen to try and wriggle out from a situation where, admittedly, he lacks support of elected majority members of the Gram Panchayat, by nit -picking before a writ Court on such hypertechnicalities which are not at all germane for consideration or adjudication in the facts of the present case, in order to cling on to power, somehow. For reasons stated above, the appeal and the connected application for stay are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. ;