AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The short issue in this writ petition is whether a No-Confidence Motion could be convened afresh in respect of Naxalbari Gram Panchayat (GP in
issue), District â€" Darjeeling on the ground that the First Meeting on 6th June, 2018 for placing the No-Confidence Motion stood adjourned for
reasons beyond the control of the Prescribed Authority (PA).
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who was removed as the Prodhan of the GP in issue by motion of members
present and voting at the Second/fresh meeting held on 29th August, 2018, submits that such adjourned meeting could not have been held at all since
the First No-Confidence Meeting scheduled for the 6th of June, 2018 was deliberately disrupted by a section of elements advancing the interests of
the present Office Bearers of the GP in issue.
Taking this Court to the Report of the PA/BDO/ Naxalbari Development Block/the Respondent No. 4 to the writ petition and, also Report of the
SEO/Naxalbari deputed by the BDO/PA to oversee the no-confidence process on the 6th of June, 2018, Mr. Bhattacharya draws the attention of this
Court to the precise statement in the Report of the SEO:-
“I asked the police personnel present to help us enter the GP office. The police personnel failed to help us.â€
In the light of the above statement, learned Senior Counsel questions the conclusion reached by the Special Secretary, Department of Panchayats and
Rural Development (DPRD) as addressed to the District Magistrate, Darjeeling on 12th September, 2018 from the comfort of his armchair and to the
effect the No Confidence Motion on 6th June, 2018 could not be gone through for reasons beyond the control of the PA. Mr. Bhattacharya questions
the rationale behind such conclusion because the State apparatus inclusive of the police personnel were required to take a consolidated action qua the
meeting dated 6th June, 2018. However, the Report of the SEOf(supra) deputed by the PA/BDO to attend the no-confidence meeting speaks of
police inertness in the nature of mere spectatorship.
In the absence of visible contrary evidence on record at present, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that there is a ring of objectivity to the complaint of the
petitioner that the police deliberately did not act on the information that vested interests would create a situation whereby the meeting would be
deemed to have been beyond the control of the PA. It does appear, according to Mr. Bhattacharya, that the PA and his deputed officers did make an
attempt to go ahead with the meeting but, were resisted without receiving police help on 6th June, 2018.
The very language of Section 12(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (for short the 1973 Act) speaks of two situations namely, a meeting may
be adjourned or cancelled: (a) either by a direction by a Competent Court; or, (b) for any other reasons beyond the control of the Prescribed
Authority. Since (b) has been invoked both by the PA and the Special Secretary/DPRD, such action, does pre-suppose an objective analysis of the
ground situation as existed on 6th June, 2018 which includes inputs on the steps taken by the police authority.
Mr. De, learned Senior Government Advocate with Mr. Bari, learned Advocate appearing for the State-respondents, submits that the fresh No-
Confidence Motion has already taken place and the petitioner has been replaced as Prodhan. The majority Will ought to be allowed to now prevail.
Next, Mr. De submits that the requirements of Section 12(4) of the 1973 Act have been met by the back-to-back Reports of the PA to the
DM/Darjeeling including the Report of the PO as well as the Report of the SEO to the effect that all of them found the ground situation to be beyond
their control to hold the meeting on 6th June, 2018.
Mr. Kundu, learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 6, submits that the writ petitioner has failed to make out any case connected to violation
of Section 12(4) of the 1973 Act (supra), even assuming that such violation exists. Mr. Kundu draws a distinction between Sections 12(4) and 12(11),
also of the 1973 Act with the latter provision speaking of a situation where a meeting could not be at all held. In view of the fact that no meeting could
be held at all on 6th June, 2018, Mr. Kundu reiterates that the PA correctly took cognizance of the fresh No-Confidence Motion and permitted the
new vote to take place replacing the petitioner with a Prodhan willed by the majority. Mr. Kundu fortifies his factual stand on the judgment reported in
2012(3) CLJ (Cal) (Md. Ali Reza vs. State of West Bengal.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court finds as follows:
A) That there are evidence of pleadings connected to Section 12(4)of the 1973 Act in the writ petition although, arguably such evidence requires more
explicit profiling in the grounds to the writ petition;
B) Therefore, it cannot altogether be submitted that the provision of Section 12(4) has been discovered by the petitioner at the Bar while arguing this
writ petition;
C) From the Reports of the PA, the SEO/ as well as the communication of the Special Secretary, DPRD dated 12th September, 2018, it is evident that
Section 12(4) and not Section 12(11) were in their minds;
D) This Court, at this stage is persuaded to accept Mr. Kundu’s argument that Section 12(11) does not apply, must turn its attention to the
requirements of Section 12(4) (supra) which is the requirement of the existence of any other reason beyond the control of the Prescribed Authority;
E) In the absence of any Report from learned State Counsel on the role of the police for facilitating the meeting to be held on 6th June, 2018, this
Court is not persuaded at this stage to accept the communication of the Special Secretary/DPRD dated 12th September, 2018 as well as of the PA to
the DM/Darjeeling dated 6th June, 2018 at face value that there existed reasons beyond the control of the Prescribed Authority;
F) This Court is also persuaded at this stage to accept the position advanced by Mr. Bhattacharya for the present that the requirement of Section
12(4) does not exclude the role to be played by the police authority which has been called to the spot by the Prescribed Authority for the purpose of
the meeting to be held in a conducive atmosphere. Accordingly, let the matter next return for judicial scrutiny under the same heading “Mentioned
Matters†in the Combined Monthly List of November, 2018.
Let the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner in Court today be supplied to the other sides and be also taken on record. The parties shall be at
liberty to prepare and exchange their stand through formal pleadings, if advised, by the next date. The conclusion arrived at by the State-Respondents
as reflected in the communication of the Special Secretary/DPRD dated 12th September, 2018 shall be subject to further judicial assessment.