July 21, 2026 (23 & 24) ARDR WPA 16313 of 2026 Aaktari Khatun & ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. With WPA 17099 of 2026 Samima Parvin Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Adv. Jayanta Kumar Das, Adv. Gourav Das, Adv. Madhumanti Das, …for the petitioner in WPA 16313/26. Adv. Mritunjay Chatterjee, Adv. Suchismita Chakraborty, Adv. Debarnab Adhikary, …for the respondent no.9 in WPA 16313/26. Adv. Mritunjay Chatterjee, Adv. Suchismita Chakraborty, Adv. Debarnab Adhikary, …for the petitioner in WPA 17099/26. Adv. Koushkee Banerjee, …for the State in both the matters. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioners in WPA 16313 of 2026 is taken on record. Since the issue raised in both the applications are corelated, this Court proposes to take up both the applications for consideration together and dispose them of by a common order. WPA 16313 of 2026 shall be referred to as the first application and WPA 17099 of 2026 shall be referred to as the second application. In the first application, the petitioners who are the members of Kushida Gram Panchayat submitted a no confidence motion for removal of the Pradhan of the 2 Panchayat before the Prescribed Authority on 19th June, 2026 which was received by the latter on the same date. By a notice issued on 25th June, 2026 the Prescribed Authority fixed the date of meeting on 8th July, 2026. However, by a subsequent notice issued on 7th July, 2026, the meeting was postponed due to non availability of police assistance. The petitioners in the first application seek a direction upon the Prescribed Authority to convene the meeting and conclude the proceeding in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the private respondent/ petitioner in the second application challenges the maintainability of the first application on the ground that court fees have not been deposited by each of the requisitionists. Learned counsel submits that though ten requisionists/members have filed a writ petition, only one court fee has been deposited. Learned counsel places reliance on the authorities in Mota Singh & ors. vs. State of Haryana & ors. reported in 1980 (supp) SCC 600 and Mrinal Kanti Das & ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 788 in support of his contention. Also, since the time period prescribed under Section 12(10) of The West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 has expired, the motion has become invalid/infructuous. I have considered the rival contention of the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the authority Mota Singh & ors. (supra), has dealt with payment of court fees when an application is filed by more than one petitioner 3 and has held that when each petitioner has his own cause of action arising out of the liability to pay tax individually and the petition of each one would be a separate and independent petition, each such person would be liable to pay legally payable court fee on his petition. The said decision has been relied upon in the judgment delivered by this Court in Mrinal Kanti Das & ors. (supra). In the present case, the members/requisitionists have submitted a single no confidence motion as a body and not in their individual capacity. The cause of action of all the petitioners is one and the same and they have no separate/individual case made out in the application. Therefore the fact situation in the present case can be distinguished from that of the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the second application. The judgments have no manner of application in the present cases. Court fees deposited by the petitioners is sufficient. It is a fact that as the motion was submitted on 19th June, 2026, the time period laid down under Section 12(10) of the Act of 1973 has expired on 18th July, 2026. However, since the meeting was adjourned by the Prescribed Authority due to non availability of police assistance, such a situation can be said to be a circumstance beyond control of the Prescribed Authority and is covered under Section 12(4) of the Act. In dealing with a similar situation, an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held in an order passed on 15th July, 2022 in MAT 992 of 2022 that when 4 the Prescribed Authority postpones the meeting because of non availability of adequate police personnel, such situation is contemplated under Section 12(4) of the Act and the time period of thirty days prescribed under Section 12(10) of the Act stands extended correspondingly. In view of the above, the Prescribed Authority and the Block Development Officer, Harishchandrapur I Development Block, being the 5th respondent in the first application, is directed to convene the meeting within ten days from the date of communication of this order upon service of notice to all the relevant parties and take the proceeding to its logical conclusion at the earliest, in accordance with law. The Inspector in charge, Harishchandrapur Police Station, being the 7th respondent in the first application, is directed to render necessary assistance to the 5th respondent so that the meeting is held peacefully and without any disturbance from any corner whatsoever. Accordingly, WPA 16313 of 2026 is allowed. WPA 17099 of 2026 is dismissed. 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.)