Item No.1 21.08.2026 Court. No. 12 GB MAT 1377 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Khateja Khatun Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. S.P. Lahiri, Md. Habibur Hahman … for the Appellant. Mr. Deb Kumar Chandra … for the State. Mr. Aloke Chatterjee, Mr. Arghya Mullick, Muhammad Obaid … for the Respondent Nos. 8 to 16. Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, Mr. Manas Das, Mr. Nazar Choudhury, Ms. Farheen Raes For the Respondent Nos.17 to 28. 1. The appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated August 11, 2026, passed in WPA No.20199 of 2026. By the order impugned the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The said writ petition was filed by the Pradhan, who allegedly has since been removed from office, as we were informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 17 to 28. 2. The issue before us is not about her removal but, whether two of the members/requisitionists, namely, Karima Khatun and Zakera Begum could have brought the requisition and could have participated in the voting process. 2 3. Her Lordship held that there were 22 members in the gram panchayat out of which 12 members brought the motion of no confidence. Even if, Zakera and Karima were not considered as requisitionists, the requisition would not fail as 1/3rd of the members had signed the same. Under such circumstances, the writ petition was dismissed. 4. Mr. Lahiri, learned advocate for the appellant submits that members of the gram panchayat would have to satisfy the condition laid down under Clause (i) of sub-section 2A of Section 4 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’). Sub-Section 2A of Section 4 provides as follows:- “(2A) The Gram Panchayat shall consist of the following members :- (i) members elected under sub- section (2) (ii) members of the Panchayat Samiti, not being Sabhapati or Sahakari Sabhapati, elected thereto from the constituency comprising any part of the Gram. (3) For the convenience of the election the prescribed authority shall, in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf by the State government, - (a) divide the area of a Gram into constituencies on the basis of the number of members of Gram 3 Panchayat determined under sub- section (2); (b) allocate to each such constituency seats, [not exceeding two], on the basis of electorate of the Gram.” 5. According to Mr. Lahiri, only those persons whose names were included in the electoral roll could be members of the gram panchayat, by contesting the election. Deletion of the names of Zahera and Karima from the electoral rolls in the SIR process disentitles them to be members and in turn takes away from them the right to remove the Pradhan. for being elected as a member of the gram panchayat. 6. We are not in agreement with Mr. Lahiri for the simple reason that, Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act provides that only persons whose names appear in the electoral roll can elect members of the gram panchayat. Sub-Section 2A provides that persons/candidates elected in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 can be members of the gram panchayat. 7. The issue before this Court is whether the deletion of the names of Zakera and Karima would automatically debar them from casting their votes in the meeting for removal of the Pradhan. Section 11(1)(g) of the said Act is relevant, which is quoted below:- 4 “11. Removal of member of Gram Panchayat.- (1) The prescribed authority may, after giving an opportunity to a member of a Gram Panchayat to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, by order remove him from office – (g) if at the time of his election he was not a citizen of India and his name has since been deleted on that ground from the electoral roll in force pertaining to the area comprised in that Gram Panchayat, by the Electoral Registration Officer.” 8. Under the said section a member of the gram panchayat shall be removed, if he or she ceases to be a citizen of India and on such ground the name of the said member had been deleted from the electoral roll. When the members, namely, Zakera and Karima were elected, their names appeared in the electoral roll. Thus, until and unless they are removed in terms of Section 11, we are not inclined to hold that they were not citizens of India and thereby, not entitled either to bring the requisition or to participate in the proceeding. 9. As of today, there is no determination of the issue that a person whose name has been deleted from the SIR ceases to be a citizen of India. Section 11(1)(g) provides that removal would be attracted 5 to a member of the gram panchayat when he/or she ceases to be a citizen of India and on account thereof, the name of the said member is struck off from the electoral roll. 10. It appears that Zakera and Karima have already preferred an appeal challenging the deletion of their names from the electoral roll, which is pending adjudication. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The other issue which Mr. Lahiri has raised that more than 50% of the members had not voted at the meeting for removal of the pradhan, is left open to be urged at the appropriate stage. The law provides that more than 50% of the existing members will have to vote in order to carry the motion and such provision will be applicable in this case. 11. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 12. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)