AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Affidavit of service, filed on behalf of the petitioner in court today, is taken on record.
The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking directions, inter alia, as follows: -
1.A writ in the nature of declaration do issue declaring that the first ‘no confidence motion’ for removal of Sabhapatis/Sahakari Sabhapatis of Hanskhali Panchayat Samity dated 25th July, 2026 has failed and no second ‘no confidence motion’ can be brought, initiated or noted within one year from July, 25, 2026;
2.A Writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the Respondents and/or their men, agents, and/or subordinates, particularly the Respondent Nos. 4, to set aside the Form-1E dated 27th August 2026, whereby the meeting scheduled to be held on 8th September 2026 has been convened for consideration of the motion for removal of , or lack of confidence in the Sabhapati/Sahakari Sabhapati of the Hanskhali Panchayat Samiti with consequential relief(s)
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the mandatory provision of Section 101(3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (in short, ‘the said Act’) was not followed by the prescribed authority while fixing the date for ‘no confidence motion’ for removal of the petitioner.
A total of 15 out of 38 members submitted a requisition seeking a ‘no confidence motion’ on 21st August, 2026 against the petitioner, who was elected as Sabhapati of Hanskhali Panchayat Samiti. Based on such ‘no confidence motion’, respondent no. 4, the Sub-divisional Officer, Ranaghat sub-division, Nadia, issued a notice on 27th August, 2026, for the second time to the petitioner and the members, as the earlier meeting could not be held or fructified.
It is further submitted that the notice was served by hanging the same on the wall of the petitioner’s house on 1st September, 2026. The Notice was further sent through registered post with an acknowledgement due card on 2nd September, 2026. Admittedly, the petitioner came to know about the notice on 1st September, 2026 whereas the date of “no confidence motion” was fixed for 08.09.2026 without allowing each of the members at least seven clear days for consideration of the motion and for arriving at a decision thereon. The authority has, therefore, failed to comply with the requirement of clear 7 days' notice, as specified in Section 101(3) of the said Act.
He further submits that the counting of clear seven days excludes the day when the notice was served and the day when the meeting will be held. The clear 7 days’ notice should also exclude the General State Holidays, as declared.
Learned counsel points out that 4th September, 2026 was declared a holiday on account of Janmashtami, were followed by Saturday and Sunday, i.e., 5th September, 2026 and 6th September, 2026. So, if the total days are calculated after excluding the aforesaid days, only three days would remain, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 103 (3) of the said Act. Therefore, notice issued on 27.08.2026 for holding a meeting for ‘no confidence motion’ on 08.09.2026 is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in the case of Dipali Halder Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WITH Abdul hamid Molla Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WITH Asit Sardar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WITH Asit Sardar Vs. Shaama Parveen reported in 2018 SCC Online Cal 2833, whereby the Single Judge, relying upon the decision of the Division Bench judgments clearly indicates that computing “the clear days” means it must exclude the start date and the date of meeting as well as Government declared holidays.
On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 31-34, 37, 38, 40, 43-45 submits that the language of Section 101(3) of the said Act says otherwise. It clearly states seven days without indicating working days. Section 101(3) is reproduced hereinunder:
“S. 101(3). The prescribed authority on receipt of the motion shall satisfy himself that it conforms to the requirements of sub-section 2 and on his satisfaction shall specially convene, by issue of notice, within five working days of the receipt of the motion, a meeting of the Panchayat Samity to be held in its office fixing the date and hour of the meeting and sending such notice at least before clear seven days to each of its existing members for consideration of the motion and for taking a decision on it.”
Thus, it is an established statute that holidays should not be excluded from the “clear seven days” and further, only one day, i.e. date of service of notice or date of meeting would be excluded as per the General Clauses Act.
Therefore, the notice was received by the petitioner before 7 days of the meeting for ‘no confidence motion’. He further submits that earlier, no date was fixed for the meeting for ‘no confidence motion’. Therefore, setting aside of the second meeting for ‘no confidence motion’ does not arise as it has been fixed in accordance with law.
Learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 10-23, 25, 26, 28-30 submits similarly and supports the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and leaves the matter to the discretion of this Court.
Learned advocate representing the State produces the report and submits that the provision of Section 103 of the said Act was duly complied with and a time frame as per the statute was also maintained. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner received the notice on 1st September, 2026 and the date is fixed on 8th September, 2026. So, a clear seven days’ notice was given to the petitioner for the meeting for ‘no confidence motion’. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the materials on record, the report and the judgment cited by the petitioner, this Court is fully satisfied that the period of clear 7 days excludes both the date on which the notice was served and the date of the meeting, i.e., 1st September, 2026 and 8th September, 2026, respectively. That being the position, the mandatory requirement of clear seven days’ notice under section 101 (3) of the said Act was not complied with by the authority, and the same should not be allowed to continue as because purpose of sending the notice at least before seven clear days is to enable each member for consideration of the motion and for taking a decision on participation.
Accordingly, the notice dated 27th August, 2026 fixing a date on 8th September, 2026 for holding ‘no confidence motion’ for removal of the petitioner is set aside.
It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not preclude the members from bringing a fresh “no confidence motion” for removal of the petitioner, if so desired.
With the above observations and directions, WPA 24388 of 2026 stands allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
The concerned Department is directed to supply urgent certified Photostat copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.