15.07.2026 Item No. 06 Court No.12 Sandip MAT 1117 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 The Pradhan, Kirtipur Gram Panchayat & Anr. Vs. Jiadul Haque & Ors. Mr. Shounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Moniruzzaman, Mr. Jahangir Badsha, Mr. Asif Dewan, Mr. Mehedi Masud …..for the Appellants. Mr. Robiul Islam, Mr. Sk. Jayed Hossin, Mr. Raju Mondal, Mr. Masooq Rahman ….for the Respondent nos. 1 to 16/ writ petitioners. Mr. D.N. Ray, Ld. G.P., Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, Ld. A.G.P., Mr. Dip Jyoti Chakraborty ….for the State. 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated July 7, 2026 passed in W.P.A. 14867 of 2026. 2. The writ petition was moved by the respondents nos. 1 to 16, who were aggrieved by the decision of the prescribed authority, i.e., the Block Development Officer of Khargram Block, in postponing the meeting for removal of the Pradhan. On the basis of the requisition dated June 10, 2026, by a notice dated June 18, 2026, the prescribed authority fixed the meeting on June 30, 2026. Subsequently, by a notice dated June 25, 2026, the meeting was postponed for non-availability of the police force, but without any date for the postponed meeting. The requisitionists sought for direction upon the prescribed authority to convene the meeting and conclude the proceeding. 3. The appellant no. 1 is the Pradhan. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that Her Lordship could not have rewritten the statute, by extending the time for the meeting in view of the provisions of Section 124) and 12(10) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The appellant also submitted that, when a proceeding under Section 11(1)(d) of the 1973 Act was pending, the requisition could not go through. Her Lordship allowed the writ petition, thereby, extending the time for the meeting to be held by the prescribed authority within a period of 10 days from the date of communication of the order. The prescribed authority was directed to take the meeting to its logical conclusion. The Inspector-in- Charge, Khargram Police Station was directed to render necessary assistance to the prescribed authority. 4. Learned advocate further 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 2 satisfaction of the prescribed authority should have been recorded in the notice, and the learned Judge should have also recorded the same. 5. Mr. Islam, learned advocate for the respondents/requisitionists submits that, the requisitionists could not have suffered for the delay and or laches or the illegality committed by the prescribed authority. According to Mr. Islam, a meeting can be postponed for reasons beyond control. In this case, the police authorities opined that there was a likelihood of breach of peace. Mr. Islam relies on the decision of the Division Bench passed in MAT 992 of 2022 (Pravati Murmu & Anr. Vs. Sabina Hasda & Ors.) and another in the case of Selina Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2022 1 CalLJ 259, in support of his contention 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 postponed, and the time would automatically stand extended beyond 30 days. 6. Heard the parties. Pendency of an application for disqualification of some of the members of the gram panchayat before the prescribed authority, cannot operate as a bar. The members/requisitionists can bring a requisition afresh, or at any point of time, until 3 they are disqualified. It is their democratic as also a statutory right, to remove the Pradhan by a vote of no confidence. The mechanism is provided under Section 12 of the said Act. Reference is made to Ujjal Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2013 (1) CHN (Cal) 458. They are two different proceedings and the prescribed authorities are also not the same. 7. The next 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. In this case, the learned Court did not opine that the situation was such that the exceptions under Section 12(4) could be 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 authorities 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 4 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. The opinion of the Officer-in-Charge of Khargram Police Station dated June 25, 2026 was not supplied to the parties, and cannot override the law. There must have cogent materials before the prescribed authority to hold that the meeting was required to be either adjourned or cancelled in apprehension of violence. His subjective satisfaction was necessary. 8. Under such circumstances, the exceptions under Section 12(4) will not be applicable in this case and the decisions of the Hon’ble Division Bench will also not be applicable in facts of the case. 9. Her Lordship had also not held that, due to reasons beyond the control of the prescribed authority, the meeting was postponed. In one of the decisions 5 referred to, the Pradhan, who was sought to be removed, approached the writ Court, after the meeting was held and the Division bench found that the exception was applicable. In this case, the prescribed authority postponed 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 sat tight over the requisition, after postponing the meeting and waited for the requisitionists to go back with the order from the High Court. 10. 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 same 6 is set aside. The requisition has also lost its validity and is accordingly set aside. 11. The order was passed by Her Lordship on July 7, 2026 and a direction to hold the meeting within 10 days from the date of communication of Her Lordship’s order, takes us beyond the period of 30 days as provided under Section 12 of the said Act of 1973. 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 7 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 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.” 8 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 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. 9 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. 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.) 10