Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) Both the appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 7th March, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 30160 (W) of 2016 (Tapan Mal vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). In MAT 442 of 2017, the appellant before this Court is the writ petitioner, whereas in MAT 533 of 2017, the appellant is the private respondent no.8 in the writ proceeding.
(2.) The writ petitioner had challenged the notice of meeting for being removed as the Sabhapati of Nalhati-I Panchayat Samity situated in the district of Birbhum. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and after taking into consideration the various contentions sought to be raised by them, passed the impugned judgment and order, operative portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow:- "Considering the submission advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the parties and after perusing the materials on record and also the report of the Prescribed Authority, which has been relied on by Mr. Banerjee, in my considered view there is some discrepancy in the impugned notice because in the impugned notice the important word "removal" has been struck off by the Prescribed Authority, which has been admitted on oath by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, in my opinion, this impugned notice cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 16th December, 2016 issued by the Prescribed Authority is quashed and set aside. I direct the Prescribed Authority to issue a fresh notice on the basis of the self-same notice of motion for formal removal taken by the requisitionists on 9th December, 2016. Thereafter take steps in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the meantime, the Sub-divisional Officer will take the charge of the said Panchayat Samity till the meeting is held and new Pradham [sic; read, Pradhan] is elected pursuant to this order. The writ petition is thus, disposed of without any order as to costs."
(3.) So far as the appellant in MAT 442 of 2017 is concerned, being the writ petitioner, it is his specific contention that the direction upon the Prescribed Authority in terms of the impugned judgment and order had cast a duty upon the said authority to proceed in accordance with law. This has been specifically spelt out in the impugned judgment and order by the learned Single Judge. However, the Prescribed Authority has not proceeded in accordance with law upon issuing fresh notice on the basis of the observations made by the learned Single Judge.;