20.08.2026 rc/ct.no.15 Item No.09 WPA No. 21854 of 2026 Md. Asfatur Rohman Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Adv. Srijib Chakraborty Adv. Aditya Mondal Adv. Washim Akthir Dafader ..for the petitioner Adv. Soumya Sankar Chini Adv. Ankana Sarkar …for the State Adv. Anindya Bose Adv. Vishak Bhattacharya Adv. Ruchira Chatterjee Adv. Raina Das …for the respondent nos.11-21 Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner who is the Pradhan of Chandmoni-II Gram Panchayat has assailed the no confidence motion submitted by the private respondents/ members of the Panchayat on August 07, 2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the no confidence motion for removal of the petitioner was submitted by the members of Chandmoni-II Gram Panchayat on May 11, 2026 pursuant to which meeting was fixed by the Prescribed Authority on June 04, 2026. The meeting was postponed due to non-availability of police assistance. The members/ requisitionists approached this Court in a writ petition being WPA No. 12537 of 2026 seeking a direction upon the Prescribed Authority to complete the proceeding in terms of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. By an order passed on June 15, 2026, this Court directed the Prescribed Authority to convene the meeting and take the proceeding to its logical conclusion in terms of Section 12 of the Act. The said order was carried in appeal by the Pradhan/ petitioner and by an order passed on July 02, 2026 in MAT No. 1035 of 2026, an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court set aside the order passed by this Court and granted liberty to the requisitionists to bring another motion accordance with law. Despite such order, the Prescribed Authority held the meeting on July 03, 2026 and the Pradhan/petitioner was removed. A date was fixed for election of the new Pradhan. The notice fixing a date of meeting for election of the new Pradhan was assailed before this Court by the petitioner in WPA No. 17156 of 2026 and by an order passed on July 17, 2026, this Court stayed the said notice as well as the meeting. The writ petition was finally disposed of with liberty to the requisitionists/ private respondents in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench. The Prescribed Authority was directed to reinstate the Pradhan/ petitioner till a subsequent motion was submitted. In terms thereof, the Prescribed Authority reinstated the petitioner and directed him to take charge of the office immediately by a letter issued on August 07, 2026. The petitioner assumed charge of the Pradhan on August 10, 2026 and informed the same to the Prescribed Authority by a letter issued on the same 2 date which was received by the latter on August 11, 2026. The private respondents submitted a no confidence motion on August 07, 2026 when the office of the Pradhan was vacant pursuant to which a notice was issued by the Prescribed Authority on August 11, 2026 fixing the date of meeting on August 21, 2026. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that since the petitioner was directed to assume charge on August 07, 2026, his assuming charge was only consequential to the said direction for which the motion was submitted on the same date. A peculiar situation has arisen in the present application where removal of the Pradhan was sought when the Pradhan did not hold the office at all. The Prescribed Authority directed the Pradhan to assume charge on August 07, 2026. The Pradhan took over charge on August 10, 2026 which came to the knowledge of the Prescribed Authority only on August 11, 2026. Suprisingly, the no confidence motion was submitted on August 07, 2026 prior to assumption of charge by the petitioner. In fact the office of the Pradhan was vacant when removal of the Pradhan was sought. Strangely, this fact was ignored by the Prescribed Authority in dealing with the motion and satisfying himself with regard to the conformity to the requirement of Section 12(2) of the Act of 1973. The meeting was also convened in extreme haste on the same 3 day when the Prescribed Authority received the joining letter of the petitioner. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that since the motion seeking removal of the Pradhan was submitted even prior to the petitioner assuming the post of Pradhan, the notice is dehors the provision laid down under Section 12 of the Act and cannot sustain in the eye of law. The motion submitted on August 07, 2026 is therefore quashed/ set aside. Consequential steps taken by the Prescribed Authority pursuant to the motion including the notice of meeting and the meeting fixed on August 21, 2026 are also quashed/ set aside. However, liberty is granted to the private respondents to submit a fresh motion in terms of Section 12 of the Act. In the event such motion is submitted, the Prescribed Authority shall take necessary steps in terms of the said provision of law, particularly the timeframe stipulated therein. 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) 4