25 jdt. 30.07.2026 jb. WPA 18640 of 2026 (Anikul Hoque vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Subir Sanyal Mr. Anindya Ghosh Mr. Subhrajot Mukherjee …. For the Petitioner Md. Sarwar Jahan Ms.Shalini Sen Sahina Parvin Mr. Aritra Ranjan Dutta Roy …. For the Private Respondents The petitioner who is the erstwhile Pradhan of Sripur-II Gram Panchayat has assailed the no confidence motion dated 19th June, 2026 and the meeting dated 13th July, 2026 on the ground that the names of the private respondents who are members of the Panchayat were struck off from the electoral roll in the Special Intensive Revision process for which they should not have participated in the voting process for his removal. Since they have participated in the voting process, the meeting and the consequence thereof are bad in law. Also, they cannot participate in the meeting scheduled this day for election of a new Pradhan. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits, on instruction, that the private respondents shall not participate in the meeting today and shall not cast their vote in the election process. It is evident that the names of the private respondents were struck off from the electoral roll 2 sometime in April, 2026. They have preferred an appeal against deletion of their names before the Adjudicating Authority which is pending. The petitioner, being the erstwhile Pradhan of the Panchayat, was aware of the said fact when the no confidence motion was submitted and the meeting held. The petitioner approached this Court in an earlier writ petition being WPA 15539 of 2026 assailing the motion and the notice of meeting issued by the Prescribed Authority on other grounds, but chose not to raise this issue before the Court in the earlier petition. The writ petition was dismissed by an order passed on 8th July, 2026. The order travelled to the Hon’ble Division Bench and the appeal was dismissed before the Hon’ble Division Bench. The private respondents were not the requisitionists, who submitted the no confidence motion against the petitioner. It is a fact that they voted against the petitioner in the meeting held by the Prescribed Authority. This Court is informed that out of 20 members of the Panchayat, 15 voted against the petitioner. Therefore, even if the votes cast by the private respondents are not taken into consideration, the petitioner can still be held to have been removed by the majority vote. The contention of the writ petitioner in the present petition has too weak a leg to stand upon. 3 The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 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. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)