July 27, 2026 (15) ARDR WPA 18187 of 2026 Sabana Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Adv. Pratip Mukherjee, Adv. Agniswar Chowdhury, …for the petitioner. Adv. Sarwar Jahan (VC), Adv. Anindya Ghosh, Adv. Souvik Das, …for the respondent no. 7 to 12 Adv. Samrat Chowdhury (VC), Adv. Anju Sahani, Adv. Ronit Naskar, …for the respondent no. 13. Adv. Sundar Gopal Bhattacharyya, Adv. Madhurima Basu, …for the State. Report submitted by the State is taken on record. The petitioner who is the erstwhile Pradhan of Alipur I Gram Panchayat has assailed the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 13th July, 2026 directing her removal as well as the notice issued by the said authority on 15th July, 2026 for election of a new Pradhan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the private respondents/requisitionists initially submitted a no confidence motion before the Prescribed Authority on 7th May,2026 pursuant to which a notice for verification was issued by the authority on 26th May,2026. One of the members being the 13th respondent herein submitted an application before the Prescribed Authority on 2nd June, 2026 stating her signature in the no confidence motion was forged. During pendency of the said motion, a second motion was submitted on 30th June, 2026 which was not 2 served upon the petitioner. By a notice issued on 3rd July, 2026, date of meeting was fixed by the Prescribed Authority on 13th July, 2026 and in the meeting held on the said date, the petitioner was removed from the post of the Pradhan. A further notice was issued by the Prescribed Authority on 15th July, 2026 fixing 24th July, 2026 for election of a new Pradhan. Referring to Section 12(11) of The West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, learned counsel submits that in view of the provision laid down therein, the second motion could not have been floated within one year of submission of the 1st motion. Learned counsels for the State and the private respondent nos. 7 to 12 submit that the first motion was infructuous due to lapse of the statutory period of time indicated in Section 12 of the Act. Copy of the second motion was served upon the petitioner at the Panchayat office and sent to her residential address. The Pradhan has been removed by vote cast by the majority of the members of the Panchayat. There is no illegality in the entire procedure which has been conducted in terms of Section 12 of the Act. I have considered the rival contention of the parties. The first motion submitted before the Prescribed Authority on 7th May, 2026 lapsed on 6th June, 2026 due to efflux of time. Section 12(11) of the Act deals with two situations when the notice of any subsequent motion for removal of the same office bearer as in the earlier motion 3 cannot be taken into cognizance within a period of one year from the date appointed for the meeting. The conditions are as follows. First, if the motion is not carried by the majority of its existing members. Second, the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum. The earlier motion submitted on 7th May, 2026 did not reach the stage of meeting. It lapsed at the initial stage of verification of the motion. Therefore the situations enumerated in Section 12(11) of the Act are not applicable in the fact situation of the present case. It appears from the documents produced by the private respondents that the motion submitted on 30th June, 2026 was served upon the petitioner at the Panchayat office and sent to her at her residential address in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act. The meeting was held and the motion decided in compliance with Section 12 of the Act including the time frame stipulated therein. The majority members of the Panchayat voted for removal of the Pradhan pursuant to which the Prescribed Authority, by the order impugned dated 13th July, 2026 directed her removal. Subsequent notice of election of a new Pradhan was issued on 15th July, 2026 and the new Pradhan has been elected in the meeting held on 24th July, 2026. The writ petition has been filed only on 23rd July, 2026 despite the fact that the petitioner was aware of each date of the 4 proceeding as well as the entire proceeding all throughout. No reason has been assigned by the petitioner as to what prompted her to remain silent over the entire proceeding throughout the same and approach this Court only after her removal. Such conduct of the petitioner amounts to her acquiescence/assent/accord. She cannot raise a dispute after watching the proceeding without a demur and allowing it to conclude. Since there is no illegality/ irregularity in the entire proceeding conducted by the Prescribed Authority, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is a democratic process and the Pradhan/ petitioner has to accept the decision of the majority. 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 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.)