33 jdt. 28.08.2026 jb. WPA 23166 of 2026 (Najera Khatun vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Mr. Aditya Mondal Ms. Sneha Mukherjee …. For the Petitioner Mr. Sundar Gopal Bhattacharyya Ms. Pinky Ghosh …. For the State Mr. Gangadhar Das Mr. Tanmay Chattopadhyay Mr. Joy Laha …. For the Respondent nos. 11-22 Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner and the report submitted by the State are taken on record. The petitioner who is the Pradhan of Sripur-I Gram Panchayat has assailed the no confidence motion submitted by the private respondents/members of the Panchayat on 15th July, 2026 for her removal solely on the ground that one of the members Basir has not put his signature in the motion. His name appears in capital letters which is distinct and different from his signatures taken in the resolution book of the Panchayat on 3rd January, 2025 and 8th January, 2025 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the motion is in contravention of Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and cannot sustain in the eye of law. 2 Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the signature in the motion belongs to Basir and he has signed therein consciously and without any threat and coercion from anyone. It appears from the report submitted by the State that the signatures in the motion were verified by the Prescribed Authority and being satisfied with the requirement as per Section 12(2) of the Act, notice of meeting for removal of the Pradhan was issued by the said authority. The report also indicates that the 12th respondent Basir, member of the Panchayat, was physically present at the office of the Prescribed Authority during verification of the signatures on 22nd July, 2026 and signed on the verification sheet. The meeting was held on 4th August, 2026 and the Pradhan was removed by vote cast by majority members. It appears that the 12th respondent has admitted his signature in the motion to be genuine and correct. Upon being satisfied with regard to conformity of the motion with Section 12(2) of the Act, the notice of meeting was issued by the Prescribed Authority. Issuance of such notice can be termed as deemed satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority with regard to conformity of the motion with Section 12(2) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority has fixed the meeting for election of the new Pradhan on 31st August, 2026. 3 In view thereof, this Court is inclined to hold that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)