August 19, 2026 (22) ARDR WPA 21636 of 2026 Anjuara Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Adv. Sarwar Jahan, Adv. Shalini Sen, Adv. Sahina Parvin, Adv. S. Roy Choudhury, …for the petitioner. Adv. Gangadhar Das, Adv. Jay Laha, …for the respondent nos. 10 to 24. Adv. Goutam Misra, …for the State. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner and the report submitted by the State are taken on record. The petitioner who is the Pradhan of Sambalpur Gram Panchayat has assailed the no confidence motions submitted by the members before the Prescribed Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first no confidence motion was submitted on 31st July, 2026 by a group of members of the Panchayat pursuant to which the Prescribed Authority issued a notice on 7th August, 2026 fixing the date of meeting on 20th August, 2026. The said motion and proceeding followed by the Prescribed Authority is in compliance of Section 12 of The West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. Surprisingly, a second motion was submitted by another set of members which is undated, pursuant to which the Prescribed Authority has issued a further notice on 10th August, 2026. According to learned counsel, two separate motions/meetings for removal of the same Pradhan is not enjoined in law. Also, the second 2 motion contains stigma against the petitioner and cannot be sustained. It appears from the report submitted by the State that pursuant to the first motion, the meeting has been fixed on 20th August, 2026 and the meeting in connection with second motion has been fixed on 24th August, 2026. It is not in dispute that the first motion submitted on 31st July, 2026 is in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act of 1973 and meeting has been fixed by the Prescribed Authority pursuant thereto on 20th August, 2026. Submission of second motion by another set of members during pendency of the first motion and fixing of a second date of meeting for removal of the Pradhan is unknown to law. Moreover, the second undated motion alleges financial irregularities in different aspects, misbehaviour with the staff, members, local people and no development work being done by the Pradhan which undoubtedly amounts to stigma against her. It is settled law that a motion containing stigma against the officer bearer cannot sustain in law. In view thereof, the second undated motion is quashed/set aside. The notice of meeting issued consequent thereto on 10th August, 2026 and the meeting fixed on 24th August, 2026 are also quashed/set aside. The Prescribed Authority and the Block Development Officer, Rotua II Development Block, being the 6th respondent herein, is directed to hold the meeting on 20th 3 August, 2026 and take the proceeding to its logical conclusion in terms of Section 12 of the Act. The Inspector in charge, Pukhuria Police Station, being the 9th respondent herein, is directed to render necessary assistance to the 6th respondent so that the meeting is held peacefully without any disturbance from any corner whatsoever. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall however, be no order as to costs. 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.)