MD. ABU SATTAR MOLLA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Md. Abu Sattar Molla
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Click here to view full judgement.
P.K. Samanta, J. -
(1.)The writ Petitioner was the Prodhan of Kholapoti Gram Panchayat, P.S. Basirhat, District -24 -Pags (N). The said Prodhan lost his majority in a requisition meeting dated 24th April, 1995 in the said requisition meeting 3 members of his parry supported the motion while the other members of his party remained absent in the said requisition meeting dated 24th April, 1994. Accordingly, the writ petitioner made a representation to the prescribed authority for taking action under Sec. 213A of the said Act against said three members of the Gram Panchayat. Prior to that the writ petitioner by a letter dated 21st April, 1995 addressed to the Sub Divisional Officer, Basirhat made complaints against 4 members of the Panchayat under Sec. 11(1) (d) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as the said Act) alleging that they were absent from several consecutive meetings of the Gram Panchayat. Challenging the resolution of removal of the petitioner from -The post of Prodhan taken in the said requisition meeting dated 24th April, 1995 the writ petitioner moved a writ petition being C.O. No. 4719(W) 1995. The same upon hearing the thereto was disposed of by an order dated 8.5.96 with a direction upon the B.D.O. concerned to decide the disputes under Sec. 11 (1) (d) and Sec. 213A of the said Act and to pass a reasoned order after hearing the parties in accordance with law.
(2.)The concerned Block Development Officer, Basirhat II ultimately by an order dated 26th May, 95 directed the writ petitioner to hand over his charge to the Up -Prodhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned in terms of Sub -Section (4) of Sec. 9 of the Act upon his removal from the post of Prodhan in the aforesaid requisition meeting dated 24th April 1995. The writ petitioner further challenged the said order of the B.D.O. concerned in a writ petition being C.O. 8688 (W) 95 which again was disposed of on 16th June, 1995 with the following order.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the following directions are given: -
As the impugned order is not a reasoned order, the same cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.
The Block Development Officer, Basirhat -II being the prescribed authority shall pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
In the event, the B.D.O. considers after hearing all the parties that he is not a prescribed authority he is directed to send all records to the S.D.O., Basirhat, who according to the B.D.O., is the prescribed authority and the S.D.O., Basirhat, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties shall pass a reasoned order, in terms of the observations made by this court in its earlier order dated 8.5.96.
The writ application is disposed of with the aforementioned observations.
(3.)In pursuance to the aforesaid order of this Hon'ble Court both the matters arising out of Sec. 11 (1) (d) and Sec. 213A of the said Act were placed before the B.D.O., Basirhat II for taking necessary action. By a composite order dated 30.8.95, the B.D.O. Basirhat -II dealt with both the proceedings as aforesaid under Sec. 11 (1) (d) and Sec. 213A of the said Act. In the respect of the proceeding arising out of complaint of the writ petitioner under Sec. 11 (1) (d) of the said Act against some members of the Gram Panchayat, the said B.D.O., as it appears from the said order, entered into the merits of the dispute lay taking evidences of the parties and by also by making his findings thereon. The said B.D.O. had thereafter forwarded his findings to the prescribed authority namely Sub Divisional Officer, Basirhat for disposal of the said proceeding as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court. In respect of the proceeding arising out of the complaint under Sec. 213A of the said Act the said B.D.O. being the prescribed authority however rejected the same on the grounds stated therein. This composite order dated 30.8.95 made by the said B.D.O., Basirhat -II in both the proceedings under Sec. 11 (1) (d) and Sec. 213A of the said Act as aforesaid has been challenged in this writ petition.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.