17.07.2026 Item No. 02 Court No.12 Sandip/GB MAT 1139 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 The Pradhan, Bahutali Gram Panchayat & Anr. Vs. Sushanta Mandal & Ors. Mr. Usof Ali Dewan, Mr. Asif Dewan, Mr. Mehedi Masud …..for the Appellants. Mr. Amrita In Chatterjee, Mr. Hemanta Kumar Das, Mr. Satyaki Banerjee ….for the Respondent nos. 1 to 10. Mr. D.N. Ray, Ld. G.P., Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, Ld. A.G.P., Mr. Dip Jyoti Chakraborty ….for the State. 1. The matter was fixed today, but there is a misprint in the list and has been marked NTW. All the parties are present, and we proceed to hear the appeal. 2. The appellant no. 1 is the Pradhan in her official capacity and the appellant no. 2 is the Pradhan in her personal capacity. 3. The respondent nos. 1 to 10 brought a requisition for removal of the Pradhan, on the ground of lack of confidence. The said requisition was brought on June 11, 2026. The prescribed authority issued a notice on June 17, 2026, fixing the date of the meeting on June 25, 2026. By a subsequent notice on June 23, 2026, the prescribed authority cancelled the meeting for non-availability of police assistance. The writ petitioners/requisitionists approached the single Judge for a direction upon the prescribed authority to hold a meeting and conclude the proceeding. 4. Her Lordship took into consideration the reason for cancellation of the meeting, i.e. non-availability of police force. However, cancellation of the meeting, in our opinion, renders the requisition infructuous. Secondly, the prescribed authority did not record his satisfaction that untoward incidents or acts of violence were expected on that date, and he would not be in a position to hold the meeting without police assistance. 5. Her Lordship could not have directed the meeting to be held within 10 days from the date of the order, inasmuch as, the same would take the meeting beyond the period of 30 days as prescribed under Section 12(10) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. 6. Mr. Dewan, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the law prescribes a time limit for the actions to be taken under Section 12 of the 1973 Act. They are mandatory. The Hon’ble High Court has already settled such issue. In the event the prescribed authority was of the view that the situation was beyond his control and the meeting should be postponed, the subjective satisfaction of the prescribed authority should have been recorded in the notice, and the learned Judge should have also recorded the same. 2 7. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the respondents/requisitionists submits that, the requisitionists could not have suffered for the laches or the illegality committed by the prescribed authority. According to Mr. Chatterjee, a meeting can be cancelled for reasons beyond control. In this case, the police authorities were not in a position to render assistance. He submits that, Section 12 (10) and the time limit of 30 days prescribed thereunder, should be harmoniously construed with Section 12(4). If either of the two exceptions provided thereunder exist, the meeting can be cancelled, and the time would automatically stand extended beyond 30 days. 8. The question is, whether the learned Judge acted in accordance with law by extending the period of meeting. We find that Her Lordship passed the order in the interest of justice and directed the prescribed authority to hold the meeting and reach the same to its logical conclusion. In our opinion, such direction is not permissible in law. The existence of either of the exceptions, which could be pressed into action, are not available from the records. In the event there were orders of Court or if the situation was beyond the control of the prescribed authority, the meeting could be adjourned or postponed or cancelled. In this case, the learned Court did not opine that the situation was such that the exceptions under Section 12(4) could be 3 applied. We also do not find that the notice issued by the prescribed authority indicated that there was a chance of breach of peace. The prescribed authority was required to take the decision within the time limit prescribed under Sections 12(3) and 12(4). The meeting was to be held mandatorily within 15 working days from the date of receipt of motion. The expression used in the provision is that, “the meeting shall not be later than 15 working days from the date of receipt of motion by the prescribed authority”. Thus, the time limit is preceded by a negative covenant. Section 12 (4) also provides that the meeting so convened “shall not be adjourned or cancelled except pursuant to order of Court or for any reason beyond the control of the prescribed authority”. The police does not have a role to play, under the scheme of the Act. The records do not suggest that, the prescribed authority apprehended breach of peace and had approached the police authorities for assistance. There must have been cogent materials before the prescribed authority to hold that the meeting was required to be cancelled in apprehension of violence. His subjective satisfaction was necessary. 9. Under such circumstances, the exceptions under Section 12(4) will not be applicable in this case. 10. Her Lordship had also not held that, due to reasons beyond the control of the prescribed authority, 4 the meeting was postponed. In this case, the prescribed authority cancelled the meeting indefinitely. It would be a different matter altogether, if the meeting was postponed by the prescribed authority on being satisfied that there was a likelihood of breach of peace, and he would not be in a position to control any act of violence. He could have rescheduled the date of the meeting. The prescribed authorities cancelled the meeting. 11. The prescribed authority is statutorily bound to follow the law. Repeated infraction of law by such authority, persuades us to observe that orientation programmes should be conducted by the District Administration to raise the level of awareness. The continuous violation of the statute by such authorities in various districts, points towards break down of the administrative machinery in the Panchayati Raj system. The democratic principles enshrined under the Constitution of India are continuously ignored. Although, we understand the agony of the requisitionists, we are constrained to hold that the order impugned cannot be sustained in law. The order impugned is set aside. The requisition has also lost its validity and is accordingly set aside. All consequential steps are set aside. 5 12. The relevant provisions of the law governing the procedure to be followed in order to give a logical conclusion to the notice of motion are quoted below:- “13. The relevant provisions are quoted below:- “12. Motion of no confidence or removal of Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan.-(1)Subject to other provisions of this section, the Pradhan or the Upa- Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat may, at any time, be removed from his office by the majority of the existing members of the Gram Panchayat, referred to in clause (i) of subsection (2A) of section 4, expressing their lack of confidence against the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan or recording their decision to remove the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. (2) For the purpose of removal of the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan, one-third of the existing members referred to in subsection (1) subject to a minimum of three members shall sign a motion in writing expressing their lack of confidence against the Pradhan or the Upa- Pradhan or recording their intention to remove the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan, indicating party affiliation or independent status of each of such members and either deliver the motion in person through any of the members or send it by registered post to the prescribed authority; one copy of the motion shall be delivered to the concerned office bearer either by hand or by registered post at the Gram Panchayat office and another copy shall be sent by registered post at his residential address. (3) The prescribed authority on receipt of the motion shall satisfy himself that it conforms to 6 the requirements of sub-sec-tion (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 Gram Panchayat to be held in its office fixing 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. (4) The meeting referred to in sub-section (3) shall be held on a working day which shall not be later than fifteen working days from the date of receipt of the motion by the prescribed authority and the meeting so convened shall not be adjourned or cancelled except in pursuance of an order or direction of a competent court or for any other reason beyond control of the prescribed authority. * * * * * * (10) On receipt of the minutes of the meeting and the report under sub-section (9), the prescribed authority shall, within next five working days, take such action as he may deem fit and the entire process commencing from submission of motion to the prescribed authority up to the action finally taken by him shall be completed within thirty days.” 14. It is also evident from the language of Section 12(4) that the meeting referred to under Section 12(2) shall not be held beyond 15 working days from the date of receipt of motion by the prescribed authority. By the time the order was passed, the period prescribed under 12(4) as also 12(10) had expired. The language used in section 12(4) makes the time period of 15 working days 7 for holding the meeting mandatory, except under certain circumstances. 15. Section 12(10) provides that the entire process has to be completed within 30 days, that is, not only holding of the meeting but also forwarding of the minutes of the meeting by the presiding officer, submission of a separate report in writing with a copy of the, minutes of the meeting and taking such action as the prescribed authority may deem fit. Under such circumstances, the learned Court failed to consider the mandatory time limits specified under each sub-section of Section 12. This motion loses its validity after a period of 30 days.” 13. The requisitionists shall be at liberty to bring another motion in accordance with law and the prescribed authority is directed to comply with the provision of law, without unnecessarily delaying the issue for whatever reason. The prescribed authority is the creature of a statute and cannot make excuses for his inaction. We take judicial notice of his failure in the first round. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 14. It is made clear that the Pradhan will not adopt any means and methods to avoid service of the motion. If the motion is in order, the meeting will be held and the police authorities will provide adequate protection/assistance. 8 15. The police authorities are also duty bound to provide adequate protection to the Government officials at the time of discharge official duty. 16. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 17. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 18. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) 9