SRI MRINAL KAMAR DAS Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS
LAWS(CAL)-1979-4-37
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 10,1979

Sri Mrinal Kamar Das Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of West Bengal And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) Section 94 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 provides for the Panchayat Samiti and its constitution It provides that for every Block the State Government will constitute a Panchayat Samiti bearing the name of the Block Sub-section (2) of Section 94 indicates as to who shall consist the Panchayat Samiti. It is necessary to set out the said sub-section. "(2) The Panchayat Samiti shall consist of the following members, namely:- (i) Pradhans of the Gram Panchayats within the Block, ex officio (ii) such number of persons not exceeding three as may be prescribed to be elected from each Gram within the Block, the Gram being divided for the purpose into as many constituencies as the number of persons to be elected, and the election being held by secret ballot at such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, from amongst, themselves by persons whose names are included in the electoral roll of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly for the time being in force pertaining to the constituency comprised in such Gram; (iii) members of the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly of the State elected thereto from a constituency comprising the Block or part thereof, not being Ministers and members of the Council of States not being Ministers, having a place of residence in the Block."
(2.) lam concerned in this case with clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 94. It stipulates that the Panchayat Samiti consists, inter alia, of members of the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly of the State elected thereto from a constituency comprising the Block or part thereof, not being Ministers and members of the Council of States not being Ministers, having a place of residence in the Block. Therefore, it is apparent that in order to be member of the Panchayat Samiti under clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 94 members of the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly must be (a) elected from a constituency comprising the Block or part thereof and (b) should not be Ministers or members of the Council of States not being Ministers and (c) should have a place of residence in the Block. These are the three conditions required to be fulfilled so that members of the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly of the State elected from the constituency comprising the Block could become members of the Panchayat Samiti Therefore, for a member of the Legislative Assembly or a member of the Parliament to become a member of the Panchayat Samiti, he must have a place of residence in the Block. In respect of respondents nos. 10, 11 and 12 with reference to the voter's list and list of different constituencies it is manifest they do not have any place of residence in the Block. This position is not disputed. If that is, then the respondents nos. 10, 11 and 12, not having a place of residence in the Block with which 1 am concerned namely, Rampurhat-11 Panchayat Samiti, cannot be members of that Panchayat Samiti The presence of the comma in the last line of clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 94, in my opinion, is a clear indication of the Legislature that indicated that such persons should be residents of the Block and should have a place of residence in the Block. In this connection, reference maybe made to the provision of Section 140 of the Panchayat Act, 1973 which deals with the constitution of the Zilla Parishad. Sub clauses (iii) of sub-section (2)of Section 140 provides that the Zilla Parishad consists of the members of the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of the State elected thereto from a constituency comprising the district or any part thereof, not being Ministers. Clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of Section 140 provides that Parishad consists of the members of the council of States not being Ministers, having a place of residence in the district. If that is the position then the constitution of the Panchayat Samiti with the respondents nos. 10, 11 and 12 is bad for the reasons aforesaid and, therefore, election held on 20th August, 1978 with presence and participation cannot be given effect to. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the writ petition; but this will not prevent the constitution of the Panchayat Samiti in accordance with the provision of clause (iii) of sub-s (2) of Section 94 in elective the Sabhapati and Sabi Sabhapati thereafter. The Rule is made absolute to the extent as indicated above There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.