42 jdt. 29.07.2026 jb. WPA 18215 of 2026 (Popi Rabidas vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya Md. Yusuf Ali …. For the Petitioner Mr. Yudhisthir Maity …. For the State Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata Mr. Mounick Ghosh Mr. Manoranjan Mahata Mr. Amit Bikram Mahata Mr. Aditya Bikram Mahata …. For the Respondent nos. 6 to 19 The petitioner who is the Pradhan of Sovanagar Gram Panchayat has assailed the no confidence motion submitted by the private respondents/members of the Panchayat seeking her removal solely on the ground that the copy of the motion served upon her is undated and cannot said to be the true copy of the original which bears a date 15th July, 2026. In producing the original motion dated 15th July, 2026, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the copy of the motion has been received by the petitioner both at the Panchayat office and at her residence and the originals bear the endorsement of the Executive Assistant of the Gram Panchayat and the office of the Block Development Officer to that effect. Learned counsel for the State submits that the original no confidence motion bears the date 15th July, 2026. The meeting is scheduled tomorrow. It appears that the motion in original bears the date 15th July, 2026. The copy of the motion submitted by the petitioner is undated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment/order passed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court wherein it is held that a copy of the original should be an accurate or true and full reproduction of the original and such copy should be inclusive of all the details with the date and signatures of the requisitionists . In the present case, the contents of the copy of the motion served upon the petitioner/Pradhan are identical to that of original and bears the signatures of the members/requisitionists. Save and except the fact that the copy of the motion is undated whereas the original motion bears a date, the copy is identical to that of the original. It has not been alleged by the private respondents or the Prescribed Authority that the signatures of the requisitionists were procured for the purpose of initiation of the motion much prior to the date mentioned in the motion. The time frame laid down in Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 commences from the date of receipt of the motion by the Prescribed Authority and not from the date of issuance of the same. Therefore, 2 the motion being undated does not render the same invalid, moreso since the same received by the petitioner is an identical copy of the original except the date being absent therein. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the contention of the petitioner has too weak a leg to stand upon. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Since the meeting is scheduled tomorrow, that is on 30th July, 2026, the Officer in Charge, Englishbazar 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. There shall be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities. Copy of the order be communicated to the Officer in Charge, Englishbazar police station by the parties at the earliest. (Suvra Ghosh, J.) 3