ILIAS SK., Vs. STATE OF W. B. AND OTHERS
LAWS(CAL)-1996-9-48
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 27,1996

Ilias Sk., Appellant
VERSUS
State Of W. B. And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PARAMANANDA MAHATO V. THE STATE OF W. B [REFERRED TO]
GARIKAPATI VEERAYA VS. N SUBBIAH CHOUDHRY [REFERRED TO]
PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT SERVICES VS. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
SYED YAKOOB VS. K S RADHAKRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR G S SODHI LT COL S K DUGGAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

N. K. Batabyal, J. - (1.)The writ-petitioner is the Pradhan of Banshabati Gram Panchayat, P. S. Suti, Dist. Murshidabad. There are 20 members in the Gram Panchayat having voting rights in the affairs of the said G. P. The respondents Nos. 8-18, who are members of the said G. P. issued a notice dated 2-6-94 asking the Pradhan, Banshabati G. P. to convene a meeting within the prescribed date of the receipt of the notice, to ascertain whether he was enjoying the confidence of the majority of the members or not. Till the filing of the writ-petition on 4th July, 1994, the said notice, it is stated by the writ-petitioner, was never tendered to him. The said respondents No. 8-18 issued another notice dated 26-6-94 under Registered-post with A. D. which was received by the writ petitioner on 30-6-94 for convening a meeting of the said G. P. on 6-7-94 for expressing 'no confidence' against the Pradhan and for his removal. A copy of the said notice dated 26-6-94 is annexed with the writ petition and marked with the letter-'A'. According to the writ petitioner, the said notice is not a clear 7-day's notice under section 16(1) of the W. B. Panchayat Act, 1973. After getting the said notice, the writ petitioner informed the prescribed authority, i.e., B.D.O., Suti-Block, Ahiron, about the defect in the notice. The said representation was received by the BDO on 30-6-94. A copy of the said representation dated 30-6-94 has been annexed with the writ petition and marked with the letter-'B'. According to the writ petitioner, though the notice issued by the requisitionists for the purpose of removal of the Pradhan was given but no opportunity was given to the writ petitioner for showing that he enjoyed the confidence of the majority members of the G. P. According to the writ petitioners the notice dated 2-6-94 is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. It is further submitted by the writ petitioner that the second notice dated 26-6-94 is also bad, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same was received by the petitioner only on 30-6-94. The writ petitioner has come before this Court being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned notice dated 26-6-94 for the following, among other, reliefs.
A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to recall, rescind, cancel or withdraw the impugned notice dated 26-6-94 marked annexure 'A' to the writ petition and to prohibit them from giving any effect or further effect to the same and for other ancillary reliefs.

A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to recall, rescind, cancel or withdraw the impugned notice dated 26-6-94 marked annexure 'A' to the writ petition and to prohibit them from giving any effect or further effect to the same and for other ancillary reliefs.

(2.)The vacating petition filed by and on behalf of the respondent Nos. 8-18 on 29th Nov., 1994 has been treated as the A. 0. on their behalf. It has been stated therein that the respondent Nos. 8-18 issued a notice dated 2-6-94 asking the Pradhan, Banshabati G. P. for convene a meeting within the prescribed period from the date of receipt of the notice to ascertain whether he was enjoying the confidence of the majority members or not. The said notice was sent to the Pradhan by Regd. post with A. D. The Pradhan refused to accept the registered letter on 10-6-94 and the same was returned back to the Sender (respondent No. 9). A copy of the said notice was served upon the prescribed authority. The xerox copy of the said refused registered letter and service copy of the prescribed authority have been annexed with the A.O. and marked with the letter-'A' collectively. As the Pradhan as per notice dated 2-6-94 did not convene any-meeting, so the said respondents issued a requisition notice dated 26-6-94 under Regd. A/D. to all the members of the G. P. including the prescribed authority. The Pradhan received the said notice dated 26-6-94 on 30-6-94. In the said notice, it was clearly stated that the requisition meeting would be held at 11.00 a.m. on 6-7-94 at Bandhabati G. P. Office. The A. D. Card and refused letters are annexed with the A.O. and marked with the letter-'B' collectively.
(3.)Thereafter, the Pradhan instead of attending the requisition meeting on 6-7-94came to this Honourable Court under writ jurisdiction challenging the said requisition notice issued by the requisitions on 26-6-94 as bad, illegal and without jurisdiction. The said matter came up as an unlisted motion before the appropriate Bench of this Court on 5-7-94 and after hearing both the sides His Lordship was pleased to direct that the meeting of the requisitions should be held on 6-7-94 but no effect of the said meeting would be given until further orders and the main matter was directed to appear as a contested application after eight weeks.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.