19.08.2026 SL No.21 Court No.12 GB MAT 1324 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Md. Usup Ali & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Robiul Islam, Mr. Jayed Hossain, Mr. Raju Mondal, Mr. Mansoor Rahman ….for the Appellants. Mr. Usof Ali Dewan, Mr. Asif Dewan …. for the Respondent No.7. Mr. D.N. Roy, Ld. GP., Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, Ld. A.G.P., Mr. Niladri Saha ….for the State. 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated July 28, 2026, passed in WPA 18072 of 2026. By the order impugned the learned Single Judge directed the prescribed authority and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jangipur to convene the meeting for removal of the Sabhapati of Suti-II Panchayat Samity on the basis of the requisition which was brought on July 07, 2026 by the appellants, at the earliest. 2. According to the appellants, the writ court was approached for necessary orders when the prescribed authority cancelled the scheduled meeting by a notice dated July 20, 2026. The meeting was scheduled on July 22, 2026. The prescribed authority indicated in the notice of cancellation that police force was not 2 available. According to the appellants, the law did not permit the prescribed authority to cancel the meeting except for those circumstances mentioned in Section 101 (4) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’). The appellants submitted before Her Lordship that the date should have been fixed at least within 30 days from the date of the requisition, in terms of Section 101(10) of the said Act. However, Her Lordship directed the prescribed authority to reach the requisition to its logical conclusion at the earliest, without mentioning that the time limit prescribed by law should be maintained. 3. Mr. Dewan, learned advocate for the Sabhapati submits that Her Lordship could not have passed the order at all, by extending the time to any future date without complying with the statutory provisions. 4. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, we find that both the parties are aggrieved on a similar ground, that is, non-compliance of the statutory provisions under Section 101 (4) and (10) of the said Act. 5. It is also informed to us that, no steps were taken by the prescribed authority on the basis of the order. We agree with the learned advocates for the respective parties to the extent that, Her Lordship should have taken care of the time limit prescribed by law and specifically directed the prescribed authority to hold 3 the meeting within such prescribed period. In not doing so, the learned trial Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction in the manner prescribed by law. 6. It has already been held that the time limit prescribed under Section 101(4) is mandatory. Those exceptional situations which permit the prescribed authority to go beyond the statutory period did not exist in the case in hand. 7. We do not find any recording of subjective satisfaction of the prescribed authority to the effect that due to circumstances were beyond his control, he was persuaded to cancel the meeting. We also do not find any honest intention on the part of the prescribed authority to take further steps either within the statutory period or on the basis of the order impugned before us. 8. It is the democratic right of the requisitionists to bring a motion of no confidence against the Sabhapati, but such right has to be exercised in terms of Section 101(2) of the said Act. The prescribed authority thereafter, has to act upon compliance of Sections 101(3) to 101(10). In this case, the prescribed authority initially scheduled the meeting on July 22, 2026 and just two days before the meeting, the prescribed authority cancelled the same for an indefinite period by citing non- availability of police force. 4 9. In our view, if the prescribed authority felt that the situation was beyond his control and he was not in a position to hold the meeting, the order of cancellation should have reflected so. Apprehension of violence or of law and order problem, should have been indicated in the notice. Secondly, there is nothing on record which would show that the prescribed authority had serious intention of holding the meeting on any subsequent date. The time limit prescribed under Section 101(4) to hold the meeting of no confidence is 15 working days from the date of receipt of the notice. 10. Admittedly, the notice of motion was received on July 7, 2026, and the meeting was at first fixed on July 22, 2026. However, the prescribed authority could have decided on the date within the time limit prescribed under Section 101(10), which provided that the entire process of issuing notices, holding the meeting and communicating the result of the meeting to the appropriate authority had to be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice of motion. 11. Under such circumstances, as the time limit cannot be extended, we allow the appeal by setting aside the order of Her Lordship and all subsequent steps taken on the basis thereof, with a liberty to the requisitionists/appellants to bring a fresh requisition in accordance with law. If the said requisition is found to be in order, the prescribed authority shall take immediate steps on the basis of the time limit 5 fixed under the provisions of Sections 101(2), 101(3) and 101(4) of the said Act. The prescribed authority shall further ensure compliance of Section 101(10) of the said Act. Non-availability of police force cannot be a ground for cancellation or adjournment in this case. If the prescribed authority schedules the meeting on the basis of the fresh requisition, police authorities will render all assistance. No further dilatory tactics will be adopted either by the Sabhapati or by the prescribed authority. The previous action of the prescribed authority is a fraud on the statute and we take judicial notice of the same. 12. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 13. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)