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.
(2.) The appellant was the Pradhan of Margram Gram Panchayat situated in the district of Murshidabad. By a meeting held on 18th September, 2017, she was removed. She questioned the legality of the notice dated 8th September, 2017, issued by the Prescribed Authority, fixing the meeting for her removal as the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat. The grounds for challenging the impugned notice essentially appear to be what was submitted by the learned advocate representing her before the learned First Court, which reads as follows:- "Mr. Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the notice itself is bad in law because in the notice, they have not struck off the words "lack of confidence against the Prodhan". Mr. Sanyal further submits that though in the top of the notice, it is very much written "removal of Prodhan" but in the second paragraph of the said notice, it is written "both removal and lack of confidence against Prodhan". Therefore, Mr. Sanyal submits that both the words, "removal" and "lack of confidence" by the Prescribed Authority in the notice dated 9th [sic; read, 8th] September, 2017 cannot be sustained. Mr. Sanyal also raises a point that nothing is mentioned in the agenda itself. In conclusion, Mr. Sanyal submits that the impugned notice dated 8th September, 2017 issued by the Prescribed Authority thereby fixing the meeting for removal of Prodhan on 18th September, 2017 cannot be sustained".
(3.) The learned First Court after considering the respective contentions of the parties and upon perusing the records found that there was no irregularity in the notice dated 8th September, 2017. As such, the writ petition was dismissed.;