AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J
The present challenge is directed against the communication of the purported minutes of a meeting dated December 2, 2019 regarding the dispute between the petitioner Trust and the Bagjola Gram Panchayat over the Bagjola Haat.
The said communication was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bashirhat, District: North 24 Parganas.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the said communication inter-alia included clauses which directed that, out of the total auction money of the 'Khajna' collection received, 30% was to be given to the Bagjola Gram Panchayat for undertaking development and sanitary works for the Bagjola Haat.
Apart from such directive in Clause 5 of the communication, Clause 6 directed the Managing Committee to look into several matters, including directions regarding Khajna collection right every year, a decision to be made on the developmental work to be taken out of the 30% of auction fund given to the Gram Panchayat and supervision of the development work undertaken out of 30% of the auction fund given to the Gram Panchayat.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that such mandatory directions were patently de hors the law and the Sub Divisional Officer had no authority to issue such directives.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 7 submits that regarding the impugned communication, there was a preceding meeting, in which representatives of the petitioner no.1-Trust also attended.
It was decided in the said meeting, as evident from the Annexure P6 at page-162 of the writ petition, in the presence of the representatives of the petitioner no.1 as well as the Gram Panchayat, that the minutes recorded therein, would be implemented. The impugned communication, it is submitted, is only pursuant to such meeting and cannot now be disputed by the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.8, that is, the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat, argues that as per Section 47 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, the Panchayat has certain powers to levy rates and fees, subject to maximum rates as the State Government may prescribe, for the purposes as provided therein, which includes development of the Panchayat and undertaking of sanitary work.
In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the members/representatives of the petitioner no.1, as mentioned in the writ petition, were compelled to sign the attendance sheet on the relevant date but were not ad idem with the alleged minutes which were communicated to the petitioners by the impugned notice dated December 2, 2019.
Even from the said sheet annexed at page-162, wherein apparently the names of the representatives of the petitioner no.1 are incorporated, the date of the same appears to be subsequent to the date of the meeting, that is, of December 3, 2019.
Moreover, nowhere from the said attendance sheet or the impugned notice is it evident that there is any signature of any of the representatives of the petitioners in such minutes.
That apart, the Sub Divisional Officer has no business to issue such a directive, amounting to a medieval farmaan issued to the legitimate owners of the land in question, that is, the petitioners, inter-alia for paying a percentage of the total auction money on the sales of the haat held on the land belonging to the petitioners to be mandatorily given to the local Gram Panchayat for undertaking developmental and sanitary works for the Bagjola Haat itself.
The approach emanating from the said notice is patently extortionist and coercive and, as such, no validity can be attached to the same.
The argument made by the respondent no.8 as regards the powers of the Panchayat to levy rates and fees under Section 47 of the 1973 Act has no manner of application in the present case, since an one-time Haat, even if held annually, cannot entail the Panchayat to arbitrarily fix 30% of the revenue from such Haat to be paid to the Panchayat for undertaking developmental and sanitary works, without disclosing any basis for arriving at such rate.
There are legitimate lawful procedures for levying rates and taxes by the Panchayat, inconsonance with the rates fixed by the State Government. In the present case, however, the impugned notice is not preceded by any decision taken by the Panchayat at all but is a directive issued by the Sub Divisional Officer of Bashirhat, Distirct North 24 Parganas who does not have any locus standi under the law to issue such a directive.
More interestingly, as annexed at page-161 of the instant writ petition, a communication to the President/Secretary of the petitioner no.1 by the local Block Development Officer, who is the respondent no.6 herein, dated November 26, 2019 was also relied on at the time of argument by learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 7, which makes it evident that the Block Development Officer concerned suffers from a prominent ego problem, since the said Block Development Officer arrogated to himself the powers of a court by choosing to grant a status-quo regarding the subject matter of the said communication.
The said subject matter was the auction to be held by the petitioner no.1. It is not understood by this court, with its limited legal acumen as to how the Block Development Officer could have any authority whatsoever to pass a status-quo order, let alone to communicate the same to the petitioner no.1.
As such, the said 'status-quo', whatever that means, could not have been a deterrent to the petitioner holding the Haat on their own premises on the assigned date.
It was beyond the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officer to direct the petitioners to pay 30% of the auction money of the collection from the sales to the Gram Panchayat for undertaking developmental and sanitary works at the Bagjola Haat. As such, the said notice/memo dated December 2, 2019 is patently illegal.
Accordingly, W.P. 24228(W) of 2019 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the notice (couched in the form of a resolution) bearing Memo No. 636/SDO/BHT/CAM dated December 2, 2019, is hereby struck down and set aside. Any consequence arising therefrom is also hereby quashed.
It is made clear that this order will not prevent the Gram Panchayat from levying any taxes as it is empowered under Section 47 of the 1973 Act, in accordance with law and by following due process of law in the event, the Gram Panchayat feels it necessary.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.