40 1199..0088..22002266 Ct. No.15 b.das WPA 21274 of 2026 Tushar Rajbanshi Vs. The State of W.B. & Ors. Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya Mr. Alokesh Dalai Ms. Mou piya De Ms. Rima Mondal Ms. Sawant Chanda …for the petitioner. Mr. Robiul Islam Mr. Masooq Rahman Kazi Ardan Ali ...for the respondent nos.8-20. Mr. Anup Dasgupta Mr. Goutam Acharya …for the State. The petitioner who is the Pradhan of Jagigram Gram Panchayat has assailed the no confidence motion submitted by the private respondents/members of the Panchayat on 3rd August, 2026 on the ground that it does not conform to Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The signatures of Mimma Khatun, Satyen Dutta and Rahim Molla differ in the copies sent to him at the Panchayat office and at his residence. The 9th requisitionist Rahim Molla had incorporated the date only in one of the copies of motion served upon the petitioner. Section 12(2) of the Act of 1973 requires that one copy of the motion shall be delivered to the concerned office bearer either by hand or by registered post at the Gram 2 Panchayat office and another copy shall be sent by registered post at his residential address. In other words, both the copies sent to the Pradhan should be identical copies of the original submitted before the Prescribed Authority. Herein, there are glaring differences between the two copies of motion served upon the petitioner as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The private respondents are unable to explain the said differences. In view of the above, it can be inferred that both the copies served upon the petitioner are not the true copies of the original motion submitted before the Prescribed Authority. One of the said copies may be held to be the true copy of the original. In that event, it can be inferred that service of the copy has been made to the Pradhan either at the office or at his residential address and not at both the places. In the result, the motion is not in conformity with Section 12(2) of the Act and cannot be sustained in law. The motion submitted on 3rd August, 2026 is therefore quashed/set aside. Consequential steps taken by the Prescribed Authority pursuant to the said motion are also quashed/set aside. However, liberty is granted to the private respondents to submit a fresh motion before the Prescribed Authority in terms of Section 12 of the Act of 1973. In the event such motion is submitted, the Prescribed Authority shall take 3 necessary steps in accordance with the said provision of law, particularly the time frame stipulated therein. Nothing further remains to be dealt with in the writ petition. The same is accordingly disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 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.)