Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26498 (CAL)

RABIKUL ISLAM v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/12525/2026 · 2026-07-03

Suvra Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

28 jdt. 03.07.2026 jb. WPA 12525 of 2026 (Rabikul Islam vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Sunil Kr. Gupta Mr. Rishav Barman …. For the Petitioner Ms. Aishwrya Rajyashree Ms. Puja Sonkar …. For the State Samim Ahmed Ms. Saloni Bhattacharya Md. Nasirul Haque …. For the Respondent nos. 6 to 18 Learned advocate on record appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent seeks liberty to file vakalatnama in the department by today. Such liberty is granted. The petitioner/Pradhan of Umrapur Gram Panchayat assails the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority and Block Development Officer, Suti II on 8th June, 2026 fixing the date of meeting on 16th June, 2026 on the ground that notice falls short of the mandate laid down under Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. It appears from the track report produced by the petitioner that the notice was sent on 9th June, 2026 fixing the date of meeting on 16th June, 2026. The notice, therefore, falls short of the mandatory time frame laid down under Section 12(3) of the Act which requires clear 7 days’ notice to be issued upon the members. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority on 8th June, 2026 is bad in law and is required to be quashed. 2 The notice is accordingly quashed/set aside. However, since the private respondents have floated no confidence motion against the Pradhan/petitioner before the Prescribed Authority seeking his removal, they cannot suffer for fault on the part of the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority is directed to convene the meeting within 10 days from the date of communication of this order and take the proceeding to its logical conclusion within the time frame laid down under Section 12 of the Act. Since the stipulated time frame has already expired, the date of communication of this order shall be treated as the date of submission of the no confidence motion before the Prescribed Authority. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)