20.08.2026 rc/ct.no.15 Item No.10 WPA No. 21842 of 2026 Sahida Sultana Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Adv. Dyutiman Banerjee Adv. Sourat Nandi Adv. Debjit Dutta ..for the petitioner Adv. Suman Chattopadhyay Adv. Bhaskar Bhattacharyya …for the State Adv. Shahan Shah Adv. Iqra Rahaman Adv. Akash Chandra Chakraborty …for the respondent nos.7-9 Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner who is the Pradhan of Aurangabad-I Gram Panchayat alleges that despite the fact that she has submitted an application before the Prescribed Authority seeking removal of the private respondents who are members of the Panchayat on account of their absence in several consecutive meetings of the Panchayat no step has been taken by the Prescribed Authority to deal with the application. On the other hand, a motion for her removal has been submitted by the members of the Panchayat including the private respondents and the Prescribed Authority, by a notice issued on August 12, 2026 has fixed the date of meeting on August 21, 2026. The petitioner seeks disposal of the application submitted by her under Section 11(1)(d) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 prior to holding the meeting. Learned counsels for the State and the private respondents submit that the meeting is being held in terms of the direction of this Court in WPA No. 20205 of 2026 given on August 11, 2026. There is no timeframe for consideration of an application submitted under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act of 1973. The application was submitted by the petitioner on August 13, 2026, i.e., a day after the notice convening the meeting was issued by the Prescribed Authority. However, since the application is pending, the Prescribed Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer, Jangipur Sub-Division, being the 3rd respondent herein, is directed to consider and dispose of the same within four weeks from the date of communication of this order upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner and the private respondents, in accordance with law. Since the private respondents allege that the signatures in all the documents annexed to the writ petition including the application submitted under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act of 1973 does not belong to the petitioner and has been done by her husband, the Prescribed Authority shall verify the same in dealing with the application under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act of 1973. The meeting pursuant to the no confidence motion submitted by the members including the private 2 respondents is fixed on August 21, 2026. Until the private respondents are formally disqualified by the Prescribed Authority in terms of Section 11(1)(d) of the Act of 1973, they are at liberty to participate in the meeting and exercise voting rights. During pendency of the application, decision of disqualification cannot be thrust upon them even before a decision is actually taken. The Prescribed Authority is directed to hold the meeting on the date fixed, i.e., August 21, 2026, in accordance with law. This Court is informed that the police authority shall render necessary assistance to the Prescribed Authority in the said meeting so that the meeting is held smoothly without any hindrance. The parties at are liberty to communicate the gist of the order to the concerned authorities at the earliest. The writ petition is 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) 3