July 31, 2026 (14) ARDR WPA 12152 of 2026 Papiya Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Adv. Jay Laha, …for the petitioner. Adv. Shamin Ahmed, Adv. Ambiya Khatun, Adv. Darshuddin Abbasi, Adv. Md. N. Haque, Adv. Reshma Khatun, Adv. Zoya Erma, …for the private respondents. Adv. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Adv. Tanusree Ghosh, …for the State. The petitioner who is the Pradhan of Paranpur Gram Panchayat has assailed the no confidence motion submitted by the private respondents on 15th May, 2026 and the notice of meeting issued by the Prescribed Authority on the same day on several counts. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that copy of the motion was not received by the petitioner at the Panchayat office or sent to her at her residential address. The Prescribed Authority has issued the notice of meeting without being satisfied that the motion conforms to the requirements of sub section 12(2) of The West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. Also, the members/requisitionists submitted a no confidence motion earlier before the Prescribed Authority on 11th February, 2026 pursuant to which the Prescribed Authority called the members for verification by a notice issued on 24th February, 2026. However, no further step was taken by the Prescribed Authority with regard to the said motion. The private respondents chose to remain silent over the issue and did 2 not insist on proceeding with the said motion. Instead, they submitted a fresh motion on 15th May, 2026 which is not permissible in law. In view of the provision laid down under Section 12(11) of the Act of 1973, the second motion could not have been filed within a period of one year from the date of the meeting. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that by a meeting held on 30th June, 2026, the Pradhan/ petitioner has been removed by the majority of the members of the Panchayat. However, in view of the order passed by this Court on 29th May, 2026 directing that any step taken in the meeting would abide by the final result of the writ petition and the resolution arrived therein would not be given effect to without leave of the Court, the result of the meeting as well as consequential steps have been withheld pending direction of this Court. I have considered the rival contention of the parties. It appears from the documents produced by the private respondents that copy of the motion 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. There is no requirement under the law to record satisfaction by the Prescribed Authority in terms of section 12(3) of the Act. Issuance of notice of the meeting by the Prescribed Authority can be held to be deemed satisfaction of the authority that the motion conforms to the requirements under sub section 12(2) of the Act. It is a fact that an earlier motion was submitted by the private respondents on 11th February, 2026 which was 3 not proceeded with after verification of the same. In view of Section 12(10) of the Act, the motion stood lapsed due to efflux of time. Neither of the parties sought intervention of the Court to continue with the said motion or take the same to its logical conclusion. In view of the same, the second motion submitted on 15th May, 2026 is not barred under the law. Section 12(11) of the Act deals with a situation when the motion is not carried by the majority of its existing members or the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum. In such a situation notice of any subsequent motion for removal of the same office bearer cannot be taken into cognizance within a period of one year from the date fixed for such meeting. The said provision of law is not applicable in the fact situation of the present case since the earlier motion did not reach the stage of the meeting at all and stood lapsed after verification of the same due to expiry of the statutory period of time. This Court is informed that the meeting has been held and the result as well as consequential steps are withheld due to the order passed by this Court on 29th May, 2026. In the light of the observation made hereinabove, the Prescribed Authority is directed to take necessary steps in terms of Section 12 of the Act in acting upon the decision taken in the meeting. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall however, be no order as to costs. 4 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.)