21.08.2026 rc/ct.no.15 Item No.14 WPA No. 22050 of 2026 Ira Pal Ghosh Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Adv. Pratip Kumar Chatterjee Adv. Maitrayee Chatterjee ..for the petitioner Adv. Debasish Sutradhar Adv. Parashar Baidya …for the State Adv. Robiul Islam Adv. Raju Mondal Adv. Masooq Rahman Adv. Sumitra Das …for the private respondent Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the erstwhile Pradhan of Margram Gram Panchayat and has been removed in a proceeding under Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The said proceeding is assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the meeting was held after expiry of 30 days from the date of submission of the motion and was in violation of Section 12(10) of the Act of 1973. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the authority in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. Collector reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 and an order passed by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in MAT No. 1139 of 2026 on July 17, 2026 in support of his contention. In the authority of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that the duly elected member/Chairman of the Council could not have been removed in such a casual and cavalier manner without giving strict adherence to the safeguards provided under the statute which had to be scrupulously followed. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the said judgment. However, in an earlier writ petition filed by the private respondents, being WPA No. 18672 of 2026, this Court, by an order passed on July 30, 2026 made the following observation:- “Since the meeting has been postponed by the Prescribed Authority for reason beyond his control, the time limit prescribed in Section 12(10) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act shall stand extended correspondingly (MAT 992 of 2022 dated 15th July, 2022).” The petitioner herein chose not to contest the said writ petition despite service of notice upon her. Despite having an opportunity to raise the issue in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner chose not to do so and has raised such issue in the present application which has already been dealt with in the earlier writ petition. In view of the fact that time period laid down under Section 12(10) of the Act was extended by this Court in the earlier writ petition and also, since the said order was not assailed before the appropriate forum, the same issue 2 cannot be dealt with by this Court in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite a direction to convene the meeting within 10 days, the Prescribed Authority convened the meeting much after the said period of time directed by the Court. Such conduct of the Prescribed Authority can at best to termed as contempt of the order of the Court. However, this Court is informed that the meeting has been held on August 13, 2026 and the Pradhan/petitioner has been removed. The petitioner had also filed a writ petition earlier being WPA No. 17684 of 2026 challenging the no confidence motion on the ground that the notice of meeting was not issued within five working days of submission of the motion and was therefore in violation of Section 12(3) of the Act. The other grounds taken in the present application were not taken in the said petition. By an order passed on July 22, 2026 in the said matter, this Court held that the notice of meeting was issued in terms of the time period prescribed under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1973. No illegality/irregularity was found in the motion by the Court in the said order. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 3 Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ 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) 4