Mukti Halder vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The writ petition has been filed by the Pradhan of Tehatta Gram Panchayat, District-Nadia. The contention of the petitioner is that a requisition was

brought on August 9, 2021 by some of the respondents expressing their intention to remove the Pradhan. The requisitionists had lost confidence in the

Pradhan. Allegation has been made in the motion that the Pradhan did not help and co-operate with the member for effecting developmental work and

failed to serve the persons in the locality. Further allegation had been levelled that the Pradhan did not cooperate with the members.

According to Mr. Jahan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the said requisition contains a stigma.

Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Ujjal Mondal vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2013 (1) CHN (CAL) and

Sourendra Nath Das vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. passed in WPA 11903 of 2021.

According to Mr. Tewari, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the requisitionists, the intention to remove would suffice the requirement of law and

the allegations against the Pradhan of not doing any developmental work and not cooperating with the members, could easily be ignored. Thus, it is

submitted on behalf of the requisitionists that the provisions of Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 allows such kind of a requisition

when the only requirement was an intention to remove the Pradhan on account of loss of confidence. He submits that the other portions of the

requisition are redundant and neither the prescribed authority nor the Court can take cognizance of such statement. Those statements do not have any

impact on the requisition.

Mr. Saha, learned advocate for the state respondents submits that the notice was not stigmatic as such. He distinguished the decision of Ujjal Mondal

(supra) on the ground that in Ujjal Mondal (supra), the allegations were more serious. According to him, in this case the allegation was inaction and

non-cooperation which are not stigmatic, and as such, the foundation of the ‘no confidence motion’ is not misconduct or mis-appropriation. Mr.

Saha refers to a decision of a Division Bench of this court in the matter of Ujjwal Kumar Singha Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2017) 2 CHN

258 (DB). In the said decision, the court observed that in an institution which runs on democratic principles, a person can continue to be its head so

long he/she enjoys the confidence of the persons who comprised such a body. According to Mr. Saha, one of the challenges before the Division

Bench was that the requisition notice carried a stigma, but the Division Bench did not set aside the requisition.

I have heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties.

In the matter of Ujjal Mondal (supra) the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the requisition notice/no confidence motion was

entertainable only when there was no foundation for bringing the motion. The relevant portion is quoted below:

“24. Having regard to section 101 of the said Act, we are of the view that a ‘no confidence motion’ is entertainable for removal of Prodhan

where there should not be any ground or foundation of bringing ‘no confidence motion’ and if ‘no confidence motion’ is carried on that

ground, it will invite civil consequence or evil consequence to the Office Bearers relating to his political career naturally and as such, natural justice

principle will have play in the matter, thereby a breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.â€​

Having perused the judgment of the Division Bench in Ujjwal Kumar Singha (supra), I do not find that the Division Bench decided the point as to

whether the requisition which carries some allegation against the Pradhan could be entertained.

This court in the matter Sourendra Nath Das v. The State of West Bengal & ors. (WPA 11903 of 2021) held as follows:

“Having considered the submissions made by the petitioner and the learned advocates for the prescribed authority, this court is of the opinion that a

reading of the requisition notice (which is in bengali), as a whole, would indicate that in the opinion of the members, the pradhan has proved to be

incompetent as he did not perform his duties and developmental works, causing deprivation to the people of the locality from the benefits all

governmental projects, and thus the members had lost confidence in their leader and wanted his removal.

The effect of such a requisition is that the pradhan being incompetent to perform his duties had caused suffering to the people and would be

consequently removed as the members lost confidence on account of such non-performance. The pradhan has a career. If the requisition is allowed to

stand, it would be a reflection of his inability and incompetence in performing his duties as a leader of the gram panchayat. This is the foundation of

the requisition. The ‘no confidence’ is based on the allegation of incompetence and inability of the pradhan and the suffering caused to the

people in the locality due to such incompetence. This is not a simple requisition for removal of the pradhan. The removal if carried through in the

meeting will carry a stigma that the pradhan was removed as he failed to perform his duties and developmental works.

In my opinion, the decision of Ujjal Mondal (supra) applies. Even if the allegations are not as serious as misappropriation or misconduct, incapacity or

incompetence of a political leader to perform works in the locality which has cause disillusionment, unhappiness and suffering to the people in the

locality are allegations which can be viewed with seriousness. The future prospects of the pradhan might be jeopardized. He will also not get a chance

to explain his conduct. Thus, the requisition notice and subsequent notice are set aside for the reasons stated hereinabove.â€​

Having considered the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that the issue before the

Hon’ble Division Bench in Ujjal Mondal (supra) with regard to the removal of the Pradhan was similar to the one raised by the petitioner in the

writ petition, that is, that the foundation of the ‘no confidence’ and the intention to remove the Pradhan cannot contain a stigma.

Inability of the Pradhan to do any developmental work, non-cooperation with the members and disservice to the local people are stigmatic. The

Pradhan can be removed by the requisitionists if they have lost confidence in him by bringing a requisition with the intention to remove. As soon as

there is an allegation of incapacity, incapability, arrogance or non-cooperation, the same becomes stigmatic. The Pradhan is a politically appointed

representative of the people and is bound to serve the people. Allegations of such nature may have a negative effect on her future prospects and her

credibility as a member of the Panchayat may be affected.

Thus, having considered the requisition notice as a whole, I am of the view that it indicates that the lack of confidence on the Pradhan was due to the

incompetence of the Pradhan, to perform developmental work in the locality and non-cooperation in serving the public. Such allegations can also

enrage and turn the people in the locality against the Pradhan.

Thus, in my view, with due respect to the submissions made by the learned advocates of the requisitionists, the requisition cannot be sustained in law,

only on the ground that there are allegations against the Pradhan, which form the foundation of the no-confidence.

Under such circumstances, the requisition dated August 9, 2021 as also the notice of motion dated August 13, 2021 and all subsequent actions are set

aside and quashed. This matter is entertained solely for the reasons indicated hereinabove. The meeting for removal cannot be held on the basis of the

said requisition.

However, the Court is conscious of the rights of the requisitionists.

The provision for removing an elected representative such as the Pradhan is of fundamental importance to ensure the democratic functioning of the

institution as well as to ensure the transparency and accountability in the functions performed by the elected representatives. These institutions must

run on democratic principles. In democracy, all persons heading public bodies can continue provided they enjoy the confidence of the persons who

comprise such bodies. This is the essence of democratic republicanism. If the Pradhan has lost support of the majority of the members, he cannot

remain in office for a single day.

I do not find that the petitioner has any statutory or legal right to stall any meeting except in accordance with law. Such meetings have not been barred

by the Government. The Government offices have resumed functioning.

The requisitionists are granted liberty to bring a fresh requisition as per Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. If such requisition is

brought, the prescribed authority shall act and proceed in terms of the provisions of Sections 12(3) and 12(4) onwards of the said Act and reach the

requisition to its logical conclusion within the time limit prescribed by the statute. The bar under Section 12(11) of the said Act shall not be applicable.

It is further made clear that the prescribed authority shall be entitled to seek police protection and if such request is made, the police authority shall

render all support to the requisitionists as also to the prescribed authority without any delay and laches. It is also made clear that if the Pradhan tries to

evade service of requisition then the requisitionists shall be entitled to serve the same in his office through his secretary or assistant and if, such

service is not accepted, then the requisitionists will be entitled to paste the same at the office of the Pradhan in addition to sending the same by

registered post to the residence of the Pradhan.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

However, there will be no order as to costs.

Parties are directed to act on the communication of the learned advocates.