Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33283 (CAL)

ANUP BISWAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

WPA/22559/2026 · 2026-08-24

Suvra Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

19 2244..0088..22002266 Ct. No.15 b.das WPA 22559 of 2026 Anup Biswas Vs. The State of W.B. & Ors. Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay Mr. Mohan Lal Banerjee Mr. Sumudraneel Nandi …for the petitioner. Mr. Robiul Islam Mr. Jayed Hossain Ms. Asmita Mitra …for the respondent nos.7-14. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Sardar Mr. Chiranjit Pal …for the State. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner and report submitted by the State are taken on record. The petitioner who is the Pradhan of Raipukur Gram Panchayat has assailed the no confidence motion submitted by the private respondents/members of the Panchayat seeking his removal on the ground that out of 22 members of the Panchayat one has expired and there are 21 members at present. 7 members submitted the motion before the Prescribed Authority on 10th August, 2026. Subsequently, one of the members Gopali Chakraborty submitted an application before the Prescribed Authority informing her withdrawal from the motion. A subsequent motion was submitted on the same date by 8 members pursuant to which notice of meeting has been issued by the Prescribed Authority on 14th 2 August, 2026 fixing the date of meeting on 25th August, 2026. The 2nd motion was not served upon/sent to the petitioner who has received only copy of the 1st motion. Due to withdrawal of the 7th member from the 1st motion, the motion is invalid. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the motion was initially submitted by 7 members and immediately thereafter, the 8th member sought to join the motion for which the 1st motion was not sent to the Prescribed Authority. The 2nd motion containing names of 8 members was submitted before the Prescribed Authority and served/sent to the Pradhan in terms of Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. One of the members Gopali Chakraborty who is also party to the writ petition has appeared before the Prescribed Authority for verification of her signature. She has submitted that she was made to write the letter of withdrawal on threat and coercion and intends to participate in the motion. It appears from the report submitted by the State that considering the subsequent application submitted by one of the members Gopali Chakraborty, the Prescribed Authority summoned all the signatories in the interest of fairness and transparency. All the signatories including Gopali Chakraborty appeared before the authority and stated that they had knowingly and consciously signed the no confidence motion. The motion bearing signatures of 8 3 members was submitted before the Prescribed Authority pursuant to which steps have been taken by the authority in terms of Section 12 of the Act. The meeting is fixed tomorrow, that is, on 25th August, 2026. It appears from the documents produced by the private respondents that copy of the subsequent motion dated 10th August, 2026 was served at the Panchayat office on the same date and sent to the Pradhan at his residential address on 11th August, 2026. Since the 1st motion bearing signatures of 7 members was not submitted before the Prescribed Authority at all, it can be said that the said motion was not initiated. The Prescribed Authority acted upon the 2nd motion signed by 8 members and fixed the date of meeting on 25th August, 2026. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that there is no illegality/irregularity in the proceeding which requires interference by this Court. Since the meeting is fixed on 25th August, 2026, the Officer in Charge Kotwali Police Station, being the 6th respondent herein, is directed to render necessary assistance to the Prescribed Authority so that the meeting is held peacefully and without any disturbance from any corner whatsoever. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 4 Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. The parties are at liberty to communicate the gist of the order to the concerned authorities at the earliest. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)