01.09.2026 Court No. 12 Item No.36 Cp/Gb MAT 1163 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 With CAN 2 of 2026 Jasmin Khatun VS The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Joy Chakraborty Mr. Sandip Dinda … for the Appellant. Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, Ld. AGP., Mr. Niladri Saha … for the State. Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Mr. Washim Akthir Dafader, Ms. Sneha Mukherjee … for the Respondent Nos.9 to 19. 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated July 15, 2026, passed in WPA 16134 of 2026. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge held that the meeting could not be held due to non-availability of adequate police assistance and, as such, the stipulated period prescribed under Section 12(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, would not operate as a bar. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Division Bench in MAT 992 of 2022. Her Lordship was of the view that the ratio of the said decision would be applicable in this 2 case as there was an observation of the Division Bench that if the meeting was adjourned for reasons beyond the control of the prescribed authority, the time period of 30 days to complete the entire process stood extended correspondingly. 2. We have already held that the period of 15 days prescribed under Section 12(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, is mandatory. Unless the situation at the ground level and contemporaneous documents indicate that holding of the meeting on the scheduled date would be beyond the control of the prescribed authority, the meeting cannot be adjourned on a specious plea that the police would not provide assistance. 3. Her Lordship has mechanically relied upon the decision in MAT 992 of 2022 in which there was an observation by the Division Bench that the reason was beyond the control of the prescribed authority and the prescribed authority was justified in postponing the meeting. However, the facts which led to the postponement of the meeting was not discussed in MAT 992 of 2022. In the said decision, the mandatory nature of the law was also not decided. The time period fixed under Section 12(4), i.e., ‘not later than 15 days’ for holding the meeting was not considered. The issue before the Division Bench was whether the period of 30 days 3 under Section 12(10) of the Panchayat Act should be adhered to if the meeting was not held due to non-availability of the police force. In such circumstances, the Division Bench held that, as the meeting was adjourned due to non-availability of the police force, the prescribed authority had to postpone the meeting for reasons beyond his control, and the period of 30 days could be extended in such situation. Reliance placed on the decision in MAT 992 of 2022, in the facts of this case was misplaced. 4. We have already held in Tafijul Hoque versus Mobarak Hossain & Ors. passed in MAT 1105 of 2026, that non-availability of police force could not be considered as reason beyond the control of the prescribed authority. Only if, the prescribed authority recorded reasons that the condition prevailing in the gram panchayat and the law and order situation therein, required protection by the police, and in the absence of the police the situation would lead to acts of violence, disruption and unlawful assembly etc., the meeting could have been postponed. 5. In this case, the prescribed authority mechanically adjourned the meeting. We fail to understand why it was at all necessary for the prescribed authority to even ask for police assistance when there are no 4 allegations at all that the members were likely to indulge in unlawful activities. To demonstrate that the situation was beyond the control of the prescribed authority and that he was not in a position to discharge his statutory duties as the administrative head of the block, adequate reasons ought to exist. 6. Thus, the order of Her Lordship is set aside, as the Court could not have extended the period prescribed by statute, without recording that the situation was beyond the control of the prescribed authority. 7. However, the respondents have come up with individual affidavits, one filed by the prescribed authority and other by one of the requisitionists, indicating that the order of Her Lordship did not lead to the meeting for removal of the pradhan and no advantage accrued in favour of the requisitionists from the said order. 8. The requisitionists brought a motion on June 30, 2026 and the meeting was held on the basis thereof. 9. We find that the order of Her Lordship was passed on July 15, 2026, that is, the day on which the meeting was held on the basis of the motion of June 30, 2026. Even the prescribed authority who was represented by the learned advocate did not 5 bring it to the notice of Her Lordship that a third motion had been brought by the requisitionists. 10. Moreover, before the prescribed authority convenes a meeting for removal of the pradhan, he has to satisfy himself with regard to compliance of Section 12(2) of the said Act. 11. It is an admitted position that the prescribed authority did not satisfy himself as to whether the pradhan had been delivered a copy of the motion at her office and whether a copy was sent to her residential address by registered post. 12. These compliances are mandatory under Section 12(2) of the said Act and the verification must be done under Section 12(3) of the said Act. 13. The affidavit of the prescribed authority is completely silent with regard to the verification. Without proper verification, no meeting can be held. In the affidavit there is neither any pleading with regard to compliance of Section 12(3) nor any pleading to the effect that the situation was beyond the control and the earlier meeting was adjourned. 14. Although, Mr. Chakraborty submits that the pradhan was served with a copy of the third requisition and has produced the track report before us today, the said document does not form a part of the affidavit. In any event, it is not the 6 requisitionists who are at fault in this situation. It was the duty of the prescribed authority under the law to ensure and verify the compliances as stated under Section 12(2) of the said Act. This was not done. 15. Thus, any action which may have been taken pursuant to the third motion, in our view, is vitiated. 16. However, it is well-settled that, right to remove the pradhan is a democratic right. The same can be exercised by the requisitionists. If the members of the gram panchayat are unhappy with their leader, they are entitled to remove him in accordance with law. It is unfortunate that the requisitionists have been bringing motion after motion and for some kind of laches, negligence and incapability of the Block Development Officer, the motions are going to waste. We also fear that this has allowed the pradhan to gain support in the meantime. This is not the intention of the legislature. The legislature has fixed timelines for the prescribed authority to act and proceed expeditiously, upon receipt of the motion. By not adhering to the timeline, the prescribed authority is stalling the functioning of the gram panchayat as the leader (pradhan) lost majority support. This directly affects the well being of the citizens who 7 voted for their representatives. This also provides an opportunity to the pradhan who is not supported by the members, to continue in office. 17. Repeated orders and directions have been passed but, it appears that the Block Development Officers in some of the blocks, especially in the district of Malda and Murshidabad, have continuously flouted the order of the Court and the State Government has turned a blind eye to these issues, despite the orders being sent to the Panchayat and Rural Development Department through the registry of this Court. This only indicates the sorry state of affairs in the administration and we perceive sheer incompetence. 18. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected applications are disposed of. 19. Liberty is granted to the requisitionists to bring a fresh motion in accordance with law. The prescribed authority will discharge his obligations in accordance with law. The pradhan shall not evade notice and in the event the pradhan is not available in the office for delivery of the motion, the same shall be pasted at a conspicuous place in the office of the gram panchayat. A copy will also be sent by registered post to the residential 8 address of the pradhan. Police will assist, if required. 20. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 21. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)