- (1.) In this application, the petitioner, who is an elected member of the Kankuria Anchal Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the said Panchayat), has impeached an order dated December 31. 1976 (Annexure B), whereby in terms of a notification issued under Section 67 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the said Panchayat has been superseded for a period of one year from January 3, 1977. The said order was made on the basis of and under an order dated December 21, 1976 (Annexure 'A'), which the petitioner has also challenged.
(2.) Admittedly the petitioner is not the elected Prodhan of the said Panchayat and he has contended that because of abscondence of the erstwhile Prodhan of the said Panchayat and two other members, the same has suffered much and in fact such sufferings continued till the election of one Shri Pasupati Tah, Respondent No. 7 as Prodhan on the basis of a meeting convened in March 1972 with the prior approval and sanction in terms of law. He has stated that on such election the said Panchayat resumed its due functions with effect from March 31, 1972. As such, the petitioner has contended that since then he along with other members of the said Panchayat were discharging their functions duly. In fact the petitioner has contended that the administration and acts of the said Panchayat have been duly appreciated by the authorities concerned. Such appreciation, the petitioner has contended was made and received after an inspection on January 19, 1974 by the Panchayat Extension Officer, Kalna I.
(3.) Thereafter, there was another inspection of the said Panchayat by the said Panchayat Extension Officer and Block Development Officer, Kalna I. on November 30, 1976 and it was found and recorded by them that the Prodhan of the said Panchayat was not competent and authorised to spend any money on repair of bridges and as such the said expenditure should be reported to the said Panchayat at its next meeting. It was also recorded that the said Shri Tah (Respondent No. 7), the elected Prodhan made over the charge of his office to the petitioner along with Rs. 3,491.91 paise. Apart from the above, the working of the said Panchayat was otherwise found to be satisfactory. It has further been contended by the petitioner that he was duly elected by the other members of the said Panchayat to carry out the duties and functions of a Prodhan in the temporary absence on leave of the duly elected Prodhan viz., Respondent No. 7. It has been contended by him that even in spite of overall improvements of the said Panchayat and its commendable performances that by a notification dated December 21, 1976 (Annexure 'A'), the Governor was pleased to record his satisfaction on the report of the prescribed authority under the said Act and appointed for the purpose of Section 67 of the same that the said Panchayat was not competent to perform and was guilty of default in the performance of duties under the said Act and as such in exercise of powers under the said Section 67, the said Panchayat should be superseded for a period of one year from the date of publication of the notification and the impugned order in Annexure "C", particulars whereof have been mentioned earlier, was issued on December 31, 1976, directing thereby that during the period of supersession of the said Panchayat, all powers, duties and functions of the same shall be exercised by the Extension Officer of Panchayats, Kalna I, Development Block.;