- (1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th September, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he, even though allowed the meeting called on for 9th September, 1999 to be held, restrained the appellants from giving effect to the resolution which was to be adopted in that meeting without the leave of the Court. The appellants before us, 8 in number, are the members of the Panditpota-11, Gram Panchayat, P. O. Amaljhari, District-Uttar Dinajpur. It is their contention that by a notice dated 16th August, 1999, they had requisitioned a meeting for removal of the Respondent No. 1 as the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and the meeting was scheduled for 9th September, 1999. But the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order stayed the implementation of the resolution which was to be adopted in that meeting.
(2.) Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge was based on a patent defect as occurring in the notice requisitioning the meeting for removal of the Pradhan. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, this notice was defective inasmuch as it was in violation of the mandatory requirement of law contained in Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and since the notice itself was defective, the meeting scheduled for 9th September, 1999 based on this notice also was also illegal and therefore, any resolution moved, passed of adopted in such an illegal meeting based on such a legally defective notice was bad in law. The learned Single Judge, therefore, according to Mr. Bhattacharjee, passed the order under appeal correctly staying the implementation of any such resolution adopted in any such meeting held on 9th September, 1999.
(3.) Mr. Bhattacharjee also submits that requirement of laW as contained in Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 is that a notice requisitioning the meeting for removal of a Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat must only state the object as "removal" and nothing more or nothing else, and that if a notice contains any mention that the Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan has lost the confidence of the members and on that basis his removal was being sought, the notice becomes defective and in violation of Section 12 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on two Division Bench judgments of this Court, one in the case of Kitabuddin Seikh v. Daud Hossain & Ors. reported in 1995(1) CLJ page 198, and the other in the case of Royhan & Ors. v. Chamatkar Malitya & Ors. reported in 89 CWN page 1044. Very strong reliance is also placed on a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rati Kanta Giri v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 98 CWN page 989.;