Sabitri Mandal (Smt.) vs State of West Bengal

Amitava Lala, J.—The most point for determination is whether the resignation of the Petitioner from the membership of the local Gram Panchayat can be treated as accepted or not in the facts and circumstances of this case.

9 members of the Gram Panchayat being requisitionists called a meeting for removal of Pradhan on August 2, 2002 when the Pradhan failed to call the same. The date of the notice calling such meeting is July 25, 2002, Initially an interim Order was passed on August 1, 2002 by which meeting was allowed to .be taken place pursuant to such notice but publication of the result will not be made without the leave or the Court.

According to the Petitioner, she tendered resignation on March 26, 2002 and the same was withdrawn on March 27, 2002. Therefore, no effect in respect of such resignation can be given. In further, she could not be disallowed from participating the meeting of the requisitionists in a situation when the participation or non-participation of such members is marginal. The requisitionists are 9 in members wherein others are also 9 in members. Therefore, if the Petitioner''s participation in the meeting is turned down on the basis of her tendering resignation, the result is obvious i.e. 9: 8. According to the writ Petitioner, earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 4378 (W) of 2002 (Smt. Sabitri Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) regarding the subject matter of the resignation is still pending in this Court. In such writ petition an order of Status Quo as on April 4, 2002 passed by the Court with a direction that no coercive measure shall be taken as against her. It has been contended by the Respondents, at the time of passing the interim order in this writ petition that the writ Petitioner therein wanted to withdraw such writ petition in which the order was passed.

However, much water flown from the date of tendering resignation by the Petitioner before the authority. She had tendered her resignation to the Block Development Officer as on March 26, 2002 who is the appropriate officer in this respect but she had withdrawn the same by writing a letter to the Sub-Divisional Officer without serving any copy to the Block Development Office. She alleged on March 27, 2002 in the letter of withdrawal that she was forced to resign. But I strangely observe that out of 18 members, leaving aside the Petitioner, no one has taken such plea as she has taken in the writ petition, therefore, either such plea is fictitious or the same is her personal action. However, vacillating mind of a people''s representative is not incorrigible. I find that the Petitioner tendered her resignation written in vernacular but withdrawn in English language with a signature in Bengali. Therefore, which one is involuntary action is a big question to this Court. It is apparent that the people of the grass-root level speaks in vernacular. They are much more accustomed with such language. In further the Block Development Officer being the appropriate authority had been addressed in such letter tendering resignation wherein the letter of withdrawal of resignation was tendered to Sub-Divisional Officer who is hot the appropriate authority. No copy of such letter of withdrawal has been given to the Block Development Officer. Thus, it can be presumed that tendering resignation is a voluntary action when withdrawal of tendering resignation is an involuntary action.

So far as the interim order in the erstwhile writ petition is concerned, such order was passed on April 4, 2002 but I find from the record that the resignation was accepted by the Block Development Officer under Memorandum No. 451 (18V dated April 1, 2002. Therefore, there had been no membership of the Petitioner on the date of obtaining interim order. So far as the question of not taking any coercive measure is concerned, the same is fait accompli even on the date of passing such order. Hence, the Petitioner, irrespective of proceeding or not proceeding of such writ petition, cannot get any benefit of the interim order passed therein.

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner by citing a judgment State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ram Kumar Mann, , contended that before acceptance of the resignation right of withdrawal is there, but after that it is total. According to Mr. Bharati Muksuddi, Learned Counsel appearing for the State Respondents as per Section 10 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act 1973, prescribed authority is the Block Development Officer but not the Sub-Divisional Officer. He is drawn my attention to Section 2(19) of such Act and Notification No. 1827-Panch dated February 7, 1974 to establish such point.

Mr. Sovan Lal Hazra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 15 to 23 contended that resignation dated March 26, 2002 has already been accepted. Therefore, the writ Petitioner has no membership of the Gram Panchayat. Hence, the writ petition cannot be maintainable on that score. He further contended that as per information slip given by this Court about the fact of the interim order passed in the earlier occasion already expired at the end of April 24, 2002.

In reply, Mr. Bandopadhyay, contended before this Court that the order accepting resignation has not been communicated to the Petitioner which has been vehemently opposed by the Respondents.

However, according to me, it is admitted position

that the resignation tendered by the Petitioner has been accepted by the authority. Therefore, the writ Petitioner has no locus.

Therefore, taking into totality of the matter, the writ petition cannot be sustained. Therefore, the same is dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. However, no order as to costs.

Let an urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the Learned Advocates for the parties within two weeks from the date of putting the requisites.