Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this order. Srat Manjura Khatoon, the petitioner in W. P. No. 10864(W) of 1997 filed the writ petition for a direction upon the respondent No. J, the Pradhan of the Samsabad Gram Panchayat No. 7 to postpone the meeting called by the Pradhan on 20.6.97 for considering the resolution of the removal of the Pradhan The said Gram Panchayat was having 16 members. Out of those 16 members 6 members served a notice dated 13.6.97 on the Pradhan under Section 16(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 for calling a meeting of the Gram Panchayat for considering a resolution for removal of the Pradhan. On receipt of that notice dated 33.6.97 for removal of the Pradhan, the Pradhan issued on that very day notices to the members of the Gram Panchayat including the writ petitioner Manjura Khatoon fixing 20.6.97 at 12 noon the meeting of the Gram Panchayat for considering the resolution of removal of the Pradhan. The case of the petitioner Manjura Khatoon is that she received the said notice on 16.6.97. It is also her case that she had earlier received an interview letter from the Adhikarik of Sishu Bikash Pradalpa fixing 20.6.97 at 1:30 p m. for interview of the petitioner at the office of the B D.O which office is situated at a distance from the concerned village as a result of which it was not possible for her to attend the meeting called by the Pradhan as well as to appear in the interview for appointment on the same date. Accordingly, she filed the writ petition on 19.6.97 being writ petition No. 1864 (W) of 1997 for postponement of the Gram Panchayat meeting scheduled to be held on 20.6.97. On 7.8.97 a learned Judge of this Court in this matter passed an order for maintaining status quo in respect of functioning of the Gram Panchayat. The meeting of the Gram Panchayat was however held on 20.6.97 as scheduled and in that meeting 13 members out of total 16 were present and out of them 8 members voted against the resolution for removal of the Pradhan and accordingly, the said resolution was lost. Subsequently, on 14.7.97 again seven members of the Gram Panchayat served a notice upon the Pradhan for calling a meeting for removal of the Pradban. Against that notice the Pradhan Sri Mrital Kanti Mohapatra filed on 24th July, 1997 the writ petition being W. P. No. 15003 (W) of 1997 for stalling the said notice. On 28.7.97 a learned Judge passed an interim order in this matter restraining the respondents from acting upon that notice Subsequently both these writ petitions have been heard together.
(2.) The first question that has to be considered is whether the meeting which was called by the Pradhan on 13.6.97 on receipt of notice from some members on that very date can be said to be bad in law so as to invalidate the meeting held on 20.6.97 on the basis of such notice. Under the second proviso to Section 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 the Pradhan is required to call the requisitioned meeting within 15 days after giving seven days' notice to the members of the Gram Panchayat. The question is whether in this particular case 'seven days' notice' was given by the Pradhan to the members of the Gram Panchayat, It may also be noticed here that in the very same proviso there is another provision that if the Pradhan fails to call such meeting, in that event the requisitioning members may themselves call the meeting after giving 'seven clear days' notice' to the Pradhan and other members of the Gram Panchayat. It may be noticed that while the said proviso requires the Pradhan to give seven days' notice for calling the meeting the requisitioning members, when they are to call the meeting, are required to give seven clear days' notice. This difference in the language should have to borne in mind. In my opinion while computing the period of seven clear days the date of issuing the notice as well as the date of he meeting are required to be excluded so that seven clear days may intervene between the said two dates. But in computing the period of seven days' notice, as distinct from seven cleat days notice, only the date of issuing the notice has to be excluded and not the date on which the meeting has been fixed. Here we find that the notice was issued by the Pradhan on 13.6.97 fixing the meeting on 20.6.97. If 13.6.97 is excluded in computing the period of seven days' notice but including 20.6.97 in that case we will find that the notice as has been given satisfies the requirement of 'seven days' notice', although it would not have been sufficient to satisfy the requirement of 'seven clear days' notice'. Therefore I find that in this present case where under the law the Pradhari is required to give seven days' notice and not seven clear days' notice the notice which was issued on 13.6.97 fixing 20.6.97 as the date for holding the meeting is valid.
(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner in the case of Manjura Khatoon refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Charan Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1968 SC 5 in support of his argument that the date of issuing the notice as well as the date of the meeting should be excluded and only the intervening period should be counted in considering whether seven days' notice has been given. In that case the Supreme Court was considering the relevant provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 under which the relevant notice was required to be sent 'not less than seven clear days before the date of meeting'. The Supreme Court in Paragraph 6 of that decision observed that as the notice was sent on the 17th and the meeting was to be called on 25th it was obvious that seven clear days did intervene and there was no breach of the concerned part of the section. It will be thus clear that the provisions of the Act under consideration of the Supreme Court in that case required that not less than seven clear days notice must be given. In our case the provision under consideration, as we have seen, does not require seven clear days' but requires only seven days 'notice and that being so, the date of the meeting mentioned in the notice also has to be taken into consideration in computing whether the notice satisfies the requirement of 'seven days notice'. The learned Advocate for this petitioner in Manjura Khatoon also attracts my attention to the decision of M N. Roy. J. in Sirojul Islam State of West Bengal, 85 CWN 188. That was a decision where the learned Judge had to consider Section 17 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act add not Section 16 which falls for our consideration in the present case. On the other hand two other decisions have been placed before me, by the learned Advocate for the respondent Pradhan, one in MJ Asraf All vtandal v. Block Development Officer, 1992 (2) CHN 229 rendered by Ruma Pal, J & the other in Samarendra Goswaml v. Dabuk Gram Panchayat, 1995 (2) CHN 238 rendered by Satyabrata Siaha, J. where it has been specifically held that the provision regarding seven days 'notice in the concerned proviso to Section 16 of the West Beagai Panchayat Act is directory and not mandatory. That being so may irregularity in the matter of giving seven days' notice will not ipso facto vitiate the notice or the meeting held on the basis of such notice if no prejudice has been caused to anybody by reason of such irregularity in the matter of a directory provision of law. I respectfully agree with the decisions of the above mentioned two learned Judges Satyrbrati Sinha and Ruma Pal, JJ. on this point.;