15.07.2026 rc/ct.no.15 Item No.37 WPA No. 16128 of 2026 Manisha Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta Mr. Parvej Anam ..for the petitioner Mr. D.N.Ray, Ld. G.P. Mr. Madhu Jana Mr. Rahul Agarwala Ms. Puja Sonkar …for the State Mr. Gangadhar Das Mr. Jay Laha …for the Private Respondents The petitioner is the Pradhan of Samsi Gram Panchayat and has assailed the no confidence motion floated by the majority members of the Panchayat being the private respondents herein on the ground that though the initial date of meeting was fixed on June 10, 2026 by a notice issued by the Prescribed Authority on May 29, 2026, the meeting had to be postponed due to non- availability of police assistance. The Prescribed Authority, by a further notice issued on June 17, 2026, fixed a date of meeting on July 02, 2026. Since the proceeding has not been concluded within 30 days from the date of receipt of the motion in terms of Section 12(10) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 the motion has become invalid and cannot be further acted upon. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the date of meeting initially fixed by the Prescribed Authority was postponed due to circumstances beyond the control of the authority and the authority cannot be held responsible for the same. Learned counsel has placed reliance on an order passed by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in MAT No. 992 of 2022 on July 15, 2022 on the same issue. The no confidence motion was received by the Prescribed Authority on May 27, 2026 and the period of 30 days as stipulated in Section 12(10) of the Act expired on June 26, 2026. The Prescribed Authority issued notice on May 29, 2026 fixing the date of meeting on June 10, 2026. However, the meeting was postponed by a subsequent notice issued on June 05, 2026 due to non-availability of adequate police force. A further notice was issued by the Prescribed Authority on June 17, 2026 fixing the date of meeting on July 02, 2026. It is not in dispute that the first date of meeting was well within the time frame contemplated under Section 12 of the Act. Since the meeting had to be postponed by the Prescribed Authority because of non-availability of adequate police personnel, Section 12(4) of the Act comes into play. The meeting was postponed under circumstances beyond the control of the Prescribed Authority. In the words of the Hon’ble Division Bench, if a meeting is adjourned for reasons beyond the control of the Prescribed Authority, the time period of 30 days prescribed in Section 12(10) of the Act also stands extended correspondingly. The first meeting having been 2 fixed within the stipulated time frame, this Court disagrees with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and holds that the proceeding cannot be said to be illegal/irregular. It is pertinent to note that the meeting could not be held on July 02, 2026 since the time of the meeting was inadvertently recorded as 12 AM instead of 12 PM and the petitioner submitted an objection in this regard before the Prescribed Authority on July 01, 2026. Further date of the meeting has been fixed on July 20, 2026 following the corrigendum issued by the authority on July 01, 2026. In view thereof, this Court is inclined to hold that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. The Prescribed Authority and Block Development Officer, Ratua-I Development Block, being the 5th respondent herein, is directed to conduct the meeting on the date fixed and take the proceeding to its logical conclusion at the earliest. The Officer in Charge, Ratua Police Station, is directed to render necessary assistance to the Prescribed Authority so that the meeting is held peacefully and without any disturbance from any corner whatsoever. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. 3 (Suvra Ghosh,J) 4