HARISH TANDON, J. - (1.) Two points are raised in this Writ Petition :- Firstly, whether a member of the Gram Panchayat is immuned from removal, if she failed to attend three meetings held by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat even if she attended one meeting conducted by the prescribed authority for removal of the Pradhan in between the aforesaid three meetings; Secondly, whether the meeting for removal of the Pradhan conducted by the prescribed authority can be construed as a meeting of the Gram Panchayat within the meaning of Section 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.
(2.) For determination of the aforesaid two points, it would be apposite to record the facts pertaining to the removal of Pradhan except to the extent that such meeting was held on 10th December, 2014 by the prescribed authority. The undisputed facts are that ten members were elected in the Kharun Gram Panchayat by election. Four members belongs to Trinamool Congress, four from Communist Party of India (Marxist), one from Bharatiya Janata Party and one independent candidate. Four members of the said Gram Panchayat submitted a no confidence motion to the prescribed authority against the Pradhan. The prescribed authority convened a special meeting on 10th December, 2014 at the Gram Panchayat office under Section 12 of the said Act. The Presiding Officer appointed by the prescribed authority reported that the meeting could not be held due to want of quorum. The motion was dismissed and order to that effect was passed by the prescribed authority on 17th December, 2014.
(3.) Subsequently, the Pradhan, the petitioner herein, issued a letter dated 30th December, 2014 to the prescribed authority intimating that the respondent no. 3, the member of the Gram Panchayat, did not attend three consecutive meetings held on 14.11.2014, 9.12.2014 and 19.12.2014 without seeking any prior leave for such absence and therefore exposed herself to be removed under Section 11(1)(d) of the said Act. On the basis of the said letter a proceeding was initiated by the prescribed authority and on the first date, a direction was passed for he issuance of the notice to all interested person including the respondent no. 3 to attend the hearing fixed on 25th February, 2015. On the said date, the prescribed authority recorded the notices to have been duly served upon the parties and on the prayer of the respondent no. 3 the time was allowed for submission of the written objection. The respondent no. 3 submitted the written objection on the next date wherein she admitted her signature on the notice dated 07.11.2014 for the meeting to be held on 14.11.2014 and denied her signature in subsequent two notices sent on 1st December, 2014 and 9th December, 2014 for the meeting to be held on 9th December, 2014 and 19th December, 2014. The said respondent further stated that she attended a 'no-confidence meeting' held in between the aforesaid three dates i.e. 10th December, 2014 and contended that the proceeding may be dismissed as the petitioner could not satisfy the ingredients of Section 11(1)(d) of the said Act. By order dated 13th March, 2015 the prescribed authority dismissed the said case holding that the requirement of the said provision has not been proved. On the conspectus of the aforesaid facts the aforementioned points are raised in this Writ Petition.;