Item No.13 17.08.2026 Court. No. 12 GB MAT 1327 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Smt. Sampa Rani (Mandal) Sinha Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Masud Malik … for the Appellant. Mr. Sauvik Nandy, Sr. Adv., Mr. A. Pandey, Mr. Suman Banerjee … for the State. Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Mr. Badrul Karim, Mr. Kiran Sk., Mr. Aritra Ghosh … for the Respondent Nos.7 to 21. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated August 7, 2026, passed by a learned Single Judge in WPA 19867 of 2026. This is the second appeal by the pradhan, who is aggrieved by the attempts of the requisitionists to remove her in accordance with law. 2. When the first motion was brought, due to the delay on the part of the prescribed autonomy and an illegal order of adjournment, the earlier motion could not be given effect to within the time limit prescribed by law. The requisitionists as also the appellant filed two writ petitions. Those two writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated July 3, 2026. Her Lordship, upon holding that the signatures of the requisitionists were not 2 verified, came to the finding that such infraction of law was attributable to the prescribed authority. Thereafter, the prescribed authority was directed by Her Lordship to convene a meeting within ten days from the communication of the order. 3. The order was challenged by the appellant in MAT 1133 of 2026. We stayed the operation of the order of Her Lordship on the, prima facie, finding that the Court could not have directed action to be taken on the basis of the requisition. However, we granted liberty to the requisitionists to bring a fresh motion in accordance with law, upon taking judicial notice of the contravention of law by the prescribed authority in adjourning the meeting, on a frivolous ground. However, we kept the appeal pending for affidavits to be exchanged and for final hearing. 4. The order passed by us in MAT 1133 of 2026 was not challenged by the appellant in a superior court and the order was accepted, meaning thereby, the liberty granted to the requisitionists by the Court upon, prima facie, holding in favour of the appellant that the meeting could not be held on the basis of a lapsed requisition had attained finality, even if the same was an interim order. Thereafter, the requisitionists brought a fresh motion in accordance with law and the motion has gone in 3 favour of the requisitionists and against the appellant, who has been removed. 5. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the question in this appeal is whether, during the pendency of the another appeal, such liberty could have been granted. This point has been raised after the order passed in MAT 1133 of 2026 had attained finality. This is not a case which is covered by Section 12(11) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. Only when a motion for removal of the pradhan cannot be carried either on account of lack of quorum or by majority, a second motion cannot be brought for a period of one year under the law. 6. The requisitionists can being a motion to remove the Pradhan in exercise of a democratic right. The case is that, the motion against the pradhan was brought by the requisitionists in accordance with law, but the same could not be carried through only because of failure on the part of the prescribed authority to fix the meeting within the time stipulated by the statute. Secondly, the order passed on July 17, 2026 was accepted by the erstwhile pradhan. 7. The law permits the requisitionists to remove the pradhan by majority vote, most commonly by raising of hands. What the pradhan is trying to do 4 now, is to stall every motion that is brought by the requisitionists. This is not permissible in law. 8. The submission of the learned advocate for the erstwhile pradhan is erroneous. The pradhan cannot keep buying time to settle with the requisitionists. The continuous litigations appear to be a ploy to enable the pradhan to garner support for herself. This is not permissible in law. That is why, the provision under Section 12(4) of the said Act has been held to be mandatory. In any event, the pradhan cannot approach the Court repeatedly, trying to stall the motions which were brought. This is violative of the principles of democracy and all democratic institutions function on the majority rule. If the Pradhan has been removed as per law, nothing survives in the appeal. 9. Thus, we do not find any injustice or infraction of law and as such, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed. 10. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)