Form No.J(2) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 Subrata Pal & Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh Mr. Ved Rai Mr. Vivek Saha Mr. Binayak Bandopadhyay Mr. H. A. Ghosh For the State : Mr. Jagiriti Mishra, AAAG Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, AGP Mr. Shuvankar Dutta For the applicant : Mr. Uday Sankar Sarkar In CAN 1 of 2026 Mr. Mantu Mandal For the intervenor : Mr. Arjun Chowdhury In CAN 2 of 2026 Ms. Riya Agarwala Heard on : 08.09.2026 Judgment on : 08.09.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for setting aside the show cause notices dated 24th August 2026 issued under Section 431(1) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") and the order dated 27th August 2026 passed under Section 431(1) of the said Act, dissolving the Board of Councilors of Jalpaiguri Municipality and the order dated 28th August 2026 appointing 2 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 an administrator consequent upon dissolution of the Board of Jalpaiguri Municipality in terms of the provisions contained under Section 431 (3) of the said Act. 2. At the very outset, I may note that an application being CAN 1 of 2026 has filed. The said application, though, claimed by Mr. Uday Sankar Sarkar, learned advocate, to have been filed by one Dinesh Routh, the applicant, the same, however, does not disclose the name of the applicant or the signature of Dinesh Routh in the body of the application. The affidavit, however, records that he is one of the applicant. On such glaring defect being noted by this Court, the learned advocate claiming to appear on behalf of Dinesh Routh seeks leave to withdraw the application. Accordingly, let the application being CAN 1 of 2026 be dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Coming back to the writ petition, records would reveal that the petitioners claim to be elected councilors of various wards of Jalpaiguri Municipality pursuant to the municipal election held in the year 2022. It is the petitioners’ case that on 19th August, 2026 the petitioners were served with a notice / order under Section 430(1) of the said Act under the signature of the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal. Though, the petitioners claim to have responded to the said show cause notice, the Additional Chief Secretary by order of the Governor, by ignoring such response had issued a notice dated 24th August, 2026 under Section 431(1) of the said Act. The petitioners claim to have responded to the said notice as well. 4. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has brought to the notice, of this Court not only to the notice under Section 430(1) of the 3 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 said Act but also, the response filed by the petitioners thereto on 22nd August, 2026. He submits that though the said notice issued under Section 430(1) of the said Act dealt with diverse allegations in relation to disruption in the administrative functioning and civic services, irregular payment of wages, pension and gratuity, the foundation for issuing such notice had not been disclosed. It is in the circumstances as aforesaid by response dated 26th August, 2026 the petitioners had called upon the appropriate authority of the Government to make disclosure of necessary information based on which such notice had been issued. In any event, it is submitted that petitioners had duly clarified their position and had reaffirmed their commitments to discharge their duties sincerely and diligently. 5. It is further submitted that by ignoring such response, a subsequent notice under Section 431(1) of the said Act has been issued. He has drawn attention of this Court to the aforesaid notice dated 24th August, 2026 and would submit that though in the said notice, reliance was placed on a report furnished by the SDO, Sadar, Jalpaiguri dated 24th August, 2026, copy of such report was not disclosed. According to him, the other reports noted in the said notice had also not been circulated to the petitioners for the petitioners to appropriately respond to the same. Further the time to file response was only three days which cannot be considered to be an adequate opportunity to respond to the show-cause. It is in the circumstances as aforesaid the petitioners by a response dated 26th August, 2026 had called upon the appropriate authority to make disclosure of the reports which formed the basis of issuance of the aforesaid notice, for the petitioners to appropriately respond to the same. 4 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 6. Mr. Ghosh further submits that notwithstanding the above, the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal without making disclosure of such document/reports and by specifically relying on the same, had not only dissolved the Board of Councilors in exercise of powers conferred under Section 431(2) of the said Act, but by invoking the powers under Section 431(3) of the said Act, had also appointed an administrator. According to him, the manner in which the State had proceeded to dissolve an elected Board is contrary to the Statute. While the time period for compliance of the notice dated 19th August, 2026 was only five (5) days, three (3) days time was only provided for the petitioners to respond to the notice dated 24th August, 2026. In fact, in the petitioners’ case the response period was only two days as the said notice was served on the petitioners only on 25th August, 2026. According to him, the aforesaid vitiates the order of dissolution of the Board of Councilors and the consequent order of appointment of administrator. 7. In this context, he relies on two several unreported judgments delivered by this Court in WPA 11873 of 2026 with WPA 12102 of 2026 (Rabishankar Das versus State of West Bengal & Ors. with Nabendu Mahali versus State of West Bengal & Ors.) and the judgment delivered in the case of Maisura Begam versus State of West Bengal & Ors. with neutral citation 2026:CHC-AS:101. He also relies on the judgment delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 1321 of 2026 (Santanu Debnath versus State of West Bengal & Ors.) 8. Mr. Mishra, Learned AAAG appears on behalf of the State. He has drawn the attention of this Court not only to the notice issued under Section 431(1) of the said Act but also the basis thereof. According to him, the 5 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 decision to issued the notice under Section 431(1) of the said Act was based on several communications and / reports. In this context, he has relied on the following reports / communications. a. Confidential report dated 29th July 2026 issued by the Executive Engineer of Jalpaiguri Municipality addressed to the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. b. Report dated 29th July 2026, issued by the SDO, Sadar, Jalpaiguri addressed to the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri as regards the allegations of administrative and financial irregularities. c. Requisition notice for conveying a special meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence against the Chairman of Jalpaiguri Municipality dated 30th July 2026. d. Notice dated 1st August 2026 issued by the SDO Sadar, Jalpaiguri Municipality requesting to ensure all official records, files, documents, including financial bills, vouchers, registers, proceedings and electronic records of Jalpaiguri Municipality are kept in safe custody. e. Two several resignation letters issued by the two Councilors both on the ground of ill health. f. Complain dated 12th August 2026 received by the Executive Officer, Jalpaiguri Municipality for taking urgent steps for restoration of disrupted municipal services. 6 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 g. Letter dated 18th August 2026 issued by the SDO, Sadar, Jalpaiguri, addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary regarding administrative stalemates in Jalpaiguri Municipality and its impact on civil services. h. Letter dated 19th August 2026 issued by the Executive Officer, Jalpaiguri Municipality to the Additional District Magistrate, L & R and Municipal Affairs regarding continued closure of Jalpaiguri Municpality office and disruption of essential services. 9. According to the Learned AAAG, the aforesaid documents form the foundation for issuance of a notice under Section 431(1) of the said Act. It is submitted that in the instant case though the State could have directly proceeded under Section 431 of the said Act, to afford an opportunity to the Board of Councilors of the municipality to rectify their defaults, in terms of Section 430(1) of the said Act, had fixed a five day period. Such notice was issued for ensuring due performance of duty by the Board of Councilors of the Municipality. According to him, since the Board of Councilors of the municipality did not rectify their mistakes, nor did it respond to the aforesaid notice and further since an additional report was received from the office of the SDO, Sadar, Jalpaiguri dated 24th August, 2026, the State had issued the show-cause notice under Section 431(1) of the said Act. 10. He submits that the State was compelled to issue the said notice for ensuring the essential services of the municipality were maintained, and 7 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 the municipality remains functional. According to him, the Board of Councilors chose not to respond to the said show-cause as well. The response was only filed individually and not by the Board. It is in such peculiar facts the State was compelled to take an unpleasant decision of dissolving the Board by invoking the powers under Section 431(2) of the said Act and consequently to ensure continuance of municipal services, had appointed an Administrator in terms of Section 431(3) of the said Act. According to him, there is no irregularity in the action of the State and no interference is called for. 11. Before proceeding to decide on the issues raised in the writ petition, I find that another application being CAN 2 of 2026 has been filed by the Saikat Chatterjee, claiming that he had continued as a Chairman of Jalpaiguri Municipality until 27th August, 2026. As such he is interested to intervene in the present proceeding inasmuch as the issue raised in the writ petition touches the discharge of duties when the applicant had remained the Chairman of Jalpaiguri Municipality. 12. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that in the instant case, serious allegations as regards prolonged administrative and financial constraints, maintaining of essential civic services, disruption of municipal governance and public service delivery, garbage collection disruption and other allied failures, including implementation of Government Schemes have also been leveled against the Board of Councilors of the municipality. I also find that in the instant case, the State had proceeded to issue a notice under Section 430(1) of the said Act, so as to afford an opportunity to the Board of Councilors to rectify the issues raised in the notice issued on 19th August, 2026. 8 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 According to the Learned AAAG since the Board of Councilors of the municipality did not restore the normal functioning of the municipality both on account of administration and for interruption of delivery of essential services and implementation of Government Schemes within the period noted therein, a further notice under Section 431(1) of the said Act, having regard to the report of the SDO, Sadar dated 24th August, 2026 had been issued. To morefully appreciate the contents of the aforesaid notice, the relevant portion thereof, is extracted hereinbelow: “AND WHEREAS five days period expired and no response from the Board of Councillors of Jalpaiguri Municipality has been received. AND WHEREAS the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Jalpaiguri, vide Memo No. 1925/S.Con, dated 24.08.2026, furnishing a report (Copy enclosed) on further development regarding continuing administrative stalemate in Jalpaiguri Municipality. The detail submission is noted below:  The Department thereafter issued Order No. 1632/UDMA- 15011(22)/72/2026-LS-MA SEC dated 19.08.2026 under Section 430(1) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, directing restoration of normal municipal functioning and uninterrupted delivery of essential civic services and Government schemes.  Agitation by pensioners, sanitation workers and other daily/-rated/casual workers has been continuing since 17.08.2026, resulting in prolonged disruption of the functioning of the Municipal Office. There have also been instances of forceful entry by agitators. The Executive Officer himself could not enter the office due to forceful obstruction of agitators since 19.08.2026. Other Officials were also subjected to obstruction from attending office and discharging their official duties. 9 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026  The situation has consequently progressed from an administrative impasse to actual disruption of municipal governance and public service delivery. Water supply, waste management and daily garbage collection have been disrupted, while services such as issuance of certificates, birth and death registration and implementation of Annapurna Yojana and Ayushman Bharat have also been affected, with the adverse impact becoming reflected in service-delivery reports.  The continued disruption is particularly concerning as the Department direction under Section 430(1) specifically requires restoration of normal municipal administration, uninterrupted civic services and implementation of Government schemes. The matter has therefore acquired a wider governance, public service and law-and-order dimension, beyond the underlying issues within the elected body and municipal establishment.  The law-and-order situation remains sensitive owing to the continued agitation and obstruction at the Municipal premises. It has so far been contained through sustained efforts of the Civil and Police Administration; however, continuation of the present situation carries a persistent risk of further deterioration. ………………………………………………………………………… …. AND WHEREAS the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Jalpaiguri, as stated above, it is clear that normal functioning of the Jalpaiguri Municipality has not been restored despite direction of this Department Order No. 1632/UDMA- 15011(22)/72/2026-LS-MA Sec, dated 19.08.2026 in terms of section 430(1) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. AND WHEREAS, the reported incident of inability in the performance of the duties to provide basic amenities to the citizen and stalemate situation in the Municipality draws attention to the 10 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 provisions of section 431 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 on power of the State government to intervene in case of gross neglect or serious irregularity. ……………………………………………………………………… NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 431 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 , the Governor is pleased hereby to direct the Board of Councilors of Jalpaiguri Municipality to show cause within three (3) days from the date of issuance of this order why it shall not be dissolved on the grounds mentioned hereinabove.” 13. From a perusal of the show-cause notice, it would appear that a three day period had been afforded to the Board of Councilors of Jalpaiguri Municipality to show cause from the date of issuance of such notice as to why it shall not be dissolved on the ground mentioned therein. Incidentally, though, the Learned AAAG had insisted that it was only for the Board of Councilors to respond, I find that the notice has been served admittedly on the individual Councilors who were also required to take action in terms of such show-cause notice. It is also not in dispute that the said notice was responded to, if not by all twenty five (25) but by at least fifteen (15) Councilors. I find that in response dated 20th August, 2026 the Councilors had specifically highlighted in paragraph 9 thereof, the specific issue regarding non-disclosure of adequate document and the report issued by the SDO, Sadar, Jalpaiguri dated 24th August, 2026. 14. It was further stated that the three day notice period provided for to respond to the show-cause notice was entirely unreasonable and a request was made to permit the Board of Councilors to respond to the show-cause within a reasonable period upon receipt of the documents relied on in the notice issued under Section 431(1) of the said Act. 11 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 Incidentally though, in the order dated 27th August, 2026 the respondents had acknowledged the receipt of the response filed by the fifteen Councilors, however, the said response was discarded as such response was not issued by the Board of Councilors of the municipality. According to learned AAAG, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 431(1) of the said Act, it is only the Board of Councilors which is competent to file a response and not the individual Councilors. Incidentally, in the instant case, I find that the show-cause notice under Section 431 of the said Act, was addressed to the individual Councilors. Having thus, addressed the show cause to the individual Councilors, the reply filed by such Councilors could not have been ignored in the manner the same has been done. The order passed by the State was to have consequence of dissolution of the Board sooner than the tenure provided in terms of Clause 1 of Article 243(U) of the Constitution of India which provides that unless sooner dissolved the tenure of the Board shall be five years and the proviso thereto, requires a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution. In the instant case, having regard to the disclosure made in the order, it would transpire that the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the concluding portion of the order dated 27th August, 2026 has placed reliance amongst others on the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Jalpaiguri vide memo dated 24th August, 2026, and has proceeded to record that in view of non-restoration of normal functioning of the administration of the Jalpaiguri Municipality despite direction issued under Section 430(1) of the said Act and the incident of failure to hold meeting of the Board of Councilors of Jalpaiguri municipality and to give reply to the said show- 12 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 cause within the specified time, the decision to dissolve the Board has been taken. 15. Incidentally, none of the document as relied on in the order and as noted above which according to the learned AAAG from the basis of formation of opinion of the Government, was made available to the Board of Councilors to respond to the same before the order of dissolution was passed. In my view, ordinarily a show-cause under Section 431(1) of the said Act should not only identify the formation of prima facie opinion but an appropriate opportunity should be afforded in terms of the said Section to the Board of Councilors to respond especially when the same is embodied in the Constitutional Scheme. In this context, Article 243U(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 431 of the said Act is extracted hereinbelow: “Article 243U “Duration of Municipalities, etc.- (1) Every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer: Provided that a Municipality shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution.” “431. Power of the State Government to intervene in case of gross neglect or serious irregularity. — If, in the opinion of the State Government, the Board of Councillors has shown gross neglect in the performance of the duties imposed upon it by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, or has committed serious irregularities in the performance of such duties, the State Government may by order direct the Board of Councillors to show cause within the period specified in the order why 13 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 it shall not be dissolved on grounds of charges mentioned in this order. (2) If the Board of Councillors fails to answer the charges within the period specified in the order or within such further time as may be allowed by the State Government, or if the answers do not convince the State Government, or where more than two-thirds of the total number of Councillors holding office for the time being have, for any reason, resigned, the State Government may dissolve the Board of Councillors by an order published in the Official Gazette with effect from the date of the order. (3) When the order of dissolution has been passed, all the powers and functions vested upon the municipal authorities under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, shall be exercised by such person or persons to be designated as Administrator or Board of Administrators as the State Government may appoint for the purpose. A general election to the Municipality shall be held within six months of its dissolution] for the constitution of a new Board of Councillors immediately thereafter: 222 The West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 [Ss. 431-432 Provided that the new Board of Councillors shall continue only for the remainder of the period of which the dissolved Municipality would have continued had it not been so dissolved: Provided further that when the period for which the Board of Councillors would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any elections for constituting a new Board of Councillors for such period. (5) * * * (6)* * * (7) If any question arises as to what constitutes a gross neglect or a serious irregularity under this section, the opinion of 14 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 the State Government as recorded in writing in the order, under this section shall be final and conclusive and the same shall not be questioned in any court of law. 16. Admittedly, in this case though the notice issued under Section 431(1) is dated 24th August, 2026, the service of such notice was effected on 25th August, 2026 on the Board of Councilors, as such a mere two day period was provided to respond. Though, the learned AAAG has contended that the said Act does not provide for any specific period to respond to the show- cause, however, having regard to the Constitutional Scheme, in my view, the opportunity to respond by the Board of Councilors has to be meaningful opportunity and not an idle formality. In the instant case, the petitioners had been denied with an opportunity to not only to go through the basis of formation of opinion but the reasonable opportunity to respond was also not given. In absence of disclosure of the reports as noted in the order dated 27th August, 2026 which is impugned, the Board of Councilors did not get appropriate opportunity to respond and defend. In identical set of facts this Court in the case of Maisura Begam (supra) had interfered. 17. Having regard thereto, I am of the view, the instant case suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. The action taken to dissolve the Board appears to be in colourable exercise of power and contrary to the Constitutional Scheme. Accordingly, the order dated 27th August, 2026 issued under Section 431(2) of the said Act stands vitiated and is accordingly set aside. As a sequel thereto, the order issued under Section 431(3) of the said Act appointing an administrator also stands set aside. Insofar as the application being CAN 2 of 2026 is concerned, the applicant had not responded to the show-cause at least there is nothing on record to 15 WPA 2013 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 disclose that any response was filed. At this stage though the learned advocate for the applicant would insist that he had responded to the show- cause in absence of any disclosure, I am unable to appreciate the same. Further admittedly, on the own showing of the applicant he has ceased to be a Chairman. 18. In the light of the above, the application being CAN 2 of 2026 is dismissed without any order as to costs. 19. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 20. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) Saswata/Sayandeep A.Rs.