Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing by treating the same as on day's list along with the application for stay.
(2.) The appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the writ Court on 18th November, 2016, in WP 25053 (W) of 2016 (Ujjawal Kumar Singha vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.).
(3.) The writ petitioner is now the appellant before us. It appears that the writ petitioner had approached the writ Court challenging a fresh notice of his removal as the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat which was issued by the requisitionists on 19th November, 2016, pursuant to the observations made by this Court as contained in the judgment and order dated 19th September, 2016, in a previous appeal, being MAT 1543 of 2016 with CAN 8571 of 2016, which was preferred by the appellant herein against an order dated 5th August, 2016, passed by the writ Court in an earlier writ petition filed by him. Apart from the notice dated 19th October, 2016, the subsequent step taken by the Prescribed Authority was also made the subject-matter of the writ petition wherefrom the impugned order dated 18th November, 2016, emanates. The appellant herein challenged the action of the respondents exclusively on three grounds which have been set out by the learned Single Judge in page 2 of the impugned judgment and order dated 18th November, 2016. The same is reproduced hereinbelow: "Mr. Bhattacharya has challenged the action of the respondents exclusively on three grounds. First, the notice is stigmatic in nature; secondly, the notice is bad in law as it does not express lack of confidence against the Pradhan; and thirdly, from the notice issued by the prescribed authority it is not clear for what purpose the meeting had been convened as he had failed to strike off the inapplicable words in the notice issued by him.";