AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is the Upa-Pradhan of the Jaijail Gram Panchayat under Habibpur Panchayat, District-Malda.
The petitioner by the instant writ petition is challenging the notice dated October 25, 2021 issued by the prescribed authority under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5B of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975 for convening the meeting on the motion of removal of the petitioner from the post of Upa-Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat.
Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the notice was issued on October 25, 2021 fixing the date of meeting on November 02, 2021 but the said notice was sent to the petitioner on October 27, 2021 which falls short of 'clear seven days' as required under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (the said Act of 1973 in short) and the said period of seven days being mandatory, the prescribed authority cannot hold the meeting for removal of the petitioner from his said post on the basis of said notice. In support of his such contention he places reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhumita Biswas -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors reported in (2007) 4 CHN 932.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that without consulting the record, he cannot apprise this Court about the exact date of sending the said notice to the petitioner. He, however, submits that the requirement of clear seven days notice is not mandatory as suggested by Mr. Chakraborty.
Mr. Chitta Ranjan Chakraborty, learned advocate for the private respondent adopts the submission of Mr. Mukherjee.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials- on-record.
The Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in (2007) 4 CHN 932 (supra), while Section 105 of the said Act of 1973 has held that giving seven clear days notice to the Savadhipati and other members of the Samity for a requisition meeting is mandatory not directory. The requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the said Act of 1973 is similar with that of the requirement of convening a meeting of Panchayat Samity under Section 105 of the said Act of 1973. Therefore, the said decision is a pointer to the issue involved in the present writ petition.
The petitioner is alleging that the impugned notice dated October 25, 2021 was sent to him on October 27, 2021. Mr. Mukherjee although is disputing the said allegation of the petitioner but till it is not established that it was sent to the petitioner on the date of issuance of it, the decision of the meeting to be convened on the basis of the said notice cannot be given effect to.
The prescribed authority, therefore, shall convene the said meeting on the basis of the said notice on the scheduled date but no decision shall be taken for removal of the petitioner from the post of Upa-Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat on the basis of the outcome of the said meeting till four weeks from date or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
Let affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition be affirmed by the respondents within one week from date; reply thereto, if any, be affirmed by the petitioner within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said affidavit-in-opposition.
Put up the matter before the regular Bench for final disposal three weeks hence when the parties shall file their respective affidavits.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.