24 0044..0088..22002266 Ct. No.15 tkm WPA 18654 of 2026 Joshoda Mandal Das Vs. The State of W.B. & Ors. Mr. Shamim Ul Bari Ms. Ashmita Mitra Mr. M Rahman Ms. Jhilik Ghosh …for the petitioner. Ms. Tapasi Palit Sinha Mr. Suman Chattopadhyay …for the State. Mr. Gangadhar Das Mr. Tanmoy Chattopadhyay …for private respondent. The petitioner who is the Pradhan of Uttar Lakshmipur Gram Panchayat has assailed the no confidence motion submitted by the private respondents/members of the Panchayat and consequential steps taken by the Prescribed Authority pursuant to the motion on two-fold grounds. First, the motion was sent to a wrong address which is not her residential address. Second, the meeting initially fixed by the Prescribed Authority has been cancelled and a further date of meeting fixed which is beyond the time-frame prescribed under section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The motion has lapsed due to efflux of time. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the motion was served upon the petitioner at the 2 official address and sent to the correct residential address of the petitioner in terms of section 12(2) of the Act of 1973. Only the name of the petitioner’s husband has been recorded wrongly in the envelope containing the copy of the motion sent to her residential address. Such mistake does not affect the motion in any manner whatsoever. I have considered the rival contention of the parties. The copy of the motion was admittedly received by the petitioner/Pradhan at her official address. The copy sent to her residential address bears the correct address. Only the name of her husband in the envelope has been wrongly stated. Since the envelope has been addressed to the petitioner at her residential address correctly, wrong name of her husband inserted in the envelope cannot stand in the way of compliance of section 12(2) of the Act. In view of the fact that the copy of the motion was sent to the petitioner at her residential address and served upon her at the office address, it can be held that section 12(2) of the Act has been complied with. With regard to second issue raised by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to place reliance on an order passed by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in MAT 992 of 2022 of 15th July 2022. In the said matter, the meeting convened by the Prescribed Authority was postponed due to non-availability of adequate police personnel. The Hon’ble Division Bench has held that such situation is contemplated under section 12(4) of the Act of 1973 which 3 authorizes the Prescribed Authority to postpone the meeting due to reasons beyond his control. In such event, the time period of 30 days prescribed in section 12(10) of the Act stands extended correspondingly. The fact situation of the present case is identical to that of the matter decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Herein, the meeting fixed by the Pradhan was adjourned due to non-availability of police assistance. In such a situation, section 12(4) of the Act comes into play and the time period of 30 days prescribed in section 12(10) of the Act stands extended correspondingly. In view of the above, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)