July 22, 2026 (17) ARDR WPA 17684 of 2026 Ira Pal Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Sr. Adv. Pratip Kumar Chatterjee, Adv. Maitrayee Chatterjee, …for the petitioner. Adv. Robiul Islam, Adv. Shamim ul Bari, Adv. Sk. Jayed Hossain, Adv. Masooq Rahman, …for the private respondents. Adv. Loknath Chattejee, Adv. Swarvanu Saha, …for the State. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner who is the Pradhan of Margram Gram Panchayat assails the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority on 15th July, 2026 on several counts. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed applications against some of the members of the Panchayat under Section 11(1) of The West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 prior to submission of no confidence motion by the members. The earlier applications filed by the petitioner have not been considered. The no confidence motion has been given priority despite the fact that three members who have put their signatures in the no confidence motion have been complained against in the applications submitted by the petitioner. Also, the notice impugned does not reflect the particular Block in respect of which the Prescribed Authority is the Block Development Officer. The notice has 2 also not been issued within five working days of submission of the motion and is therefore in violation of Section 12(3) of the Act of 1973. Learned counsel for the private respondents denies and disputes the allegation raised by the petitioner. It is trite law that an application under Section 11(1) of the Act is independent of a no confidence motion wherein some of the members have been complained against in the application under Section 11(1). Until the members are removed upon consideration of the application under Section 11(1), their right to vote in connection with the no confidence motion exists. Such right cannot be curtailed prior to consideration of the application seeking their removal for the reason that the allegation raised by the Pradhan in the application shall in that case be prejudged. Pendency of an application under Section 11(1) of the Act does not restrain the Prescribed Authority from dealing with a no confidence motion submitted by the members. The no confidence motion was submitted on 8th July, 2026 and the notice of meeting was issued on 15th July, 2026, i.e., in terms of the time period prescribed under Section 12(3) of the Act. The motion has been addressed to the Prescribed Authority and the Block Development Officer, Khargram Development Block, copy of which has been received by the petitioner as well as the members. Therefore mere omission of the Block in the notice is a 3 technical error and does not render the notice invalid. The notice appears to be in conformity with Section 12(4) of the Act. The same does not suffer from any irregularity/ illegality and does not require interference by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. The Officer in charge, Khargram 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. Copy of this order be communicated to the Officer in charge, Khargram Police Station by the parties at the earliest. There shall however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)