17 2233..0077..22002266 Ct. No.15 b.das WPA 17420 of 2026 Kuhelika Parvin Vs. The State of W. B. & Ors. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Mr. Anindya Bose Mr. Golam Mohiuddin Ms. Raina Das Md. Kaif Hossain …for the petitioner. Mr. Prantik Ghosh Ms. Paulami Saha Mr. Prasad Bhattacharyya …for the private respondents. Mr. Ankur Sharma …for the State. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner who is the erstwhile Sabhapati of Baduria Panchayat Samiti has assailed the requisition notice dated 17th June, 2026 submitted for her removal, the order of removal dated 9th July, 2026 and the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority for election of a new Sabhapati on 13th July, 2026 on the ground that the no confidence motion contains a stigma and could not have been proceeded with. The motion and other consequential steps taken pursuant thereto ought to be set aside. Learned counsel places reliance on the authority in Ram Autar Singh Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 6091 and Razia 2 Sultana vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 240 in support of his contention. Learned counsel submits that mere delay in filing the writ petition cannot be construed to be acquiescence on the part of the petitioner in claiming her rights. Opposing the contention of the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the no confidence motion was submitted on 17th June, 2026, the notice of meeting was issued on 23rd June, 2026 fixing the date of meeting on 7th July, 2026. The petitioner was removed from the post by an order passed on 9th July, 2026 and notice for election of new Sabhapati was issued on 13th July, 2026 fixing the date of meeting on 24th July, 2026. Since the no confidence motion was served upon the petitioner in terms of Section 101(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, and she was aware of the proceedings all throughout, her conduct of remaining silent and not challenging the motion or the process till completion thereof amounts to estoppel and acquiescence. She is debarred from raising such issue after her removal. Learned counsel places reliance on the authorities in Chairman, State Bank of India and Another. vs. M.J. James reported in (2022) 2 SCC 301 and T. Gnanavel vs. R. Sasipriya and Others reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 457 in support of his contention. 3 It appears that the no confidence motion was submitted on 17th June, 2026 and upon being satisfied that in conformed to the requirements of sub-section 2, the Prescribed Authority issued notice of meeting on 23rd June, 2026 fixing the date of meeting on 7th July, 2026. By an order passed on 9th July, 2026, the Sabhapati was removed from the post. By a notice issued on 13th July, 2026, the Prescribed Authority fixed 24th July, 2026 for holding the meeting for election of the new Sabhapati. The writ petition was filed only on 17th July, 2026. It is not in dispute that the no confidence motion contains stigma against the petitioner. However, the petitioner chose to remain silent over the same till her removal from the post and issuance of notice for election of a new Sabhapati. In the words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the authority in Chairman, State Bank of India (supra) the doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which applies when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right, while the act is in progress and after violation is completed, which conduct reflects his assent or accord. He cannot afterwards complain. In the authority in T. Gnanvel (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a fence-sitter cannot be permitted to raise a dispute with regard to an issue after it has concluded. 4 In the present case, the petitioner chose to remain silent over the entire issue right from initiation of the proceedings by way of no confidence motion till her removal and a meeting fixed for election of a new Sabhapati and woke up from slumber only after issuance of such notice. Such conduct of the petitioner amounts of acquiescence and she cannot be permitted to challenge the proceeding after completion of the same, more so, since she was aware of every stage of the proceeding and yet chose to remain silent. The authority in Ram Autar Singh Yadav (supra) deals with breach of fundamental rights and non- observance of such right. The ratio decidendi laid down therein has no manner of application in the present case. In the authority in Razia Sultana (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has affirmed an order of a single Bench of the Court setting aside the resolution removing the writ petitioner as Pradhan since the petitioner was elected during pendency of the writ petition. In the present case, the writ petition has been filed long after completion of the entire process. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that in view of the conduct of the petitioner, she is not entitled to any relief herein despite the motion containing stigma. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5 The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. All parties shall act on the server copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)