August 7, 2026 (5) ARDR WPA 19867 of 2026 Smt. Sampa Rani (Mandal) Sinha Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Adv. Masud Mallik, Adv. Sudhir Kr. Bhowmik, Adv. Mohua Naskar, …for the petitioner. Adv. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Adv. Aritra Ghosh, Adv. Rohan Mahabub, …for the private respondents. Adv. Partha Banerjee, Adv. Rupsa Sreemani, …for the State. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner who is the Pradhan of Kshempur Gram Panchayat has assailed the motion submitted by the private respondents/members of the Panchayat solely on the ground that the second motion could not have been floated during pendency of the first motion. Learned counsels for the State and the private respondents deny and dispute the allegation raised by the petitioner. The members of the Panchayat/private respondents floated a motion for removal of the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority on 18th May, 2026 pursuant to which the date of meeting was fixed by the Prescribed Authority on 4th June, 2026. Both the Pradhan and the requisitionists approached this Court by two separate writ petitions being WPA 12939 of 2026 and WPA 12235 of 2026, the Pradhan challenging the motion and the requisitionists seeking police assistance for the meeting. By 2 an order passed on 3rd July, 2026, this Court dismissed the prayer of the Pradhan and allowed the prayer of the requisitionists. The said order was carried in appeal before an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by the Pradhan and by an order passed on 17th July, 2026 in MAT 1133 of 2026, the Hon’ble Division Bench stayed the operation of the order impugned and recorded that pendency of the appeal would not prevent the requisitionists from bringing a fresh motion in accordance with law. The Prescribed Authority was directed to act and proceed accordingly in the event such motion was brought. In terms thereof, the private respondents/requisitionists submitted a fresh motion on 21st July, 2026 pursuant to which the Prescribed Authority has fixed the meeting this day, i.e., on 7th August, 2026 by a notice issued on 27th July, 2026. Since the requisitionists have submitted the second motion in terms of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the said motion cannot be said to be invalid on the ground of pendency of the earlier motion, more so, since the Hon’ble Division Bench has prima facie observed that no action could have been taken on the basis of the earlier requisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench of this Court reported in AIR 2016 (Cal) 221 in support of his contention. Learned counsel also submits that the second motion is barred under Section 12(11) of The West Panchayat Act, 1973. 3 The said provision of law enumerates that if the motion is not carried by majority of its existing members or the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion for the removal of the same office bearer shall be taken into cognizance within a period of one year from the date appointed for such meeting. Herein, none of the motions reached the stage of meeting at all. Therefore Section 12(11) of the Act is not applicable herein. The judgment referred to by the petitioner deals with Section 12(1) and 12(11) of the Act of 1973 and holds that the second motion cannot be submitted when the earlier motion is still alive. The fact situation of the present case can be distinguished from that of the referred judgment as discussed hereinabove. In view of the fact that the second motion has been submitted by the private respondents in terms of liberty granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the writ petition challenging such motion on that ground is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Since the meeting is scheduled to be held today, i.e., on 7th August, 2026, the Inspector in charge, Chanchal Police Station 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 gist of this order be communicated to the Inspector in charge by the State at once. There shall however, be no order as to costs. 4 Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the 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.)