03.09.2026 rc/ct.no.15 Item No.24 WPA No. 23296 of 2026 Rubina Khatun & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Adv. Rajarshi Chatterjee Adv. Sreetama Neogi Adv. Susmita Mukherjee ..for the petitioners Adv. Arka Bhattacharjee Adv. Bidhayak Lahiri Adv. Megha Sarkar ….for the State Adv. Sudipta Dasgupta Adv. Baibhav Roy …for the respondent nos. 7 to 9 Affidavit of service and supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners are taken on record. Service upon the private respondents is not complete. However, since the private respondents are represented, the petitioners are directed to serve a copy of the application alongwith annexure thereto upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents in course of this day. The petitioners are the Pradhan and Upapradhan of Domohana Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Pradhan of the Panchayat, being the 1st petitioner herein, submitted a complaint before the Prescribed Authority against the private respondents/members of the Panchayat under Section 11(1)(d) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 seeking their removal due to their absence in three consecutive meetings of the Panchayat despite service of notice upon them. The Prescribed Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer, Islampur has fixed the date of hearing of such application on September 09, 2026. In the meantime a no confidence motion has been submitted for removal of the Pradhan and Upapradhan by the members of the Panchayat including the private respondents herein. Date of meeting pursuant to such motion has been fixed on September 07, 2026. The petitioners seek adjournment of the said meeting till the application under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act is disposed of. Section 12 of the Act of 1973 prescribes a time limit for disposal of a no confidence motion submitted under the said provision of law. No such time limit has been prescribed for disposal of an application under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act. At this juncture I am tempted to refer to the authority in Ujjal Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2013) 1 CHN 458 wherein an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has dealt with a similar issue and has observed as hereunder :- “It is a basic principle of law that punishment in the nature of disqualification cannot be imposed by debarring somebody to exercise his power as a member or to exercise his rights and responsibilities as a member, so long no order of disqualification is 2 passed. If the members against whom complaints are pending are debarred to bring requisition notice, the consequential effect would be that disqualification clause is being imposed upon them prior to adjudication of complaints seeking disqualification, which under the law is not permissible.” In view of the fact that the issue has been decided by this Court earlier, the prayer of the petitioners cannot be acceded to. The relevant Prescribed Authorities are directed to hold the meetings scheduled by them on September 07, 2026 and September 09, 2026 respectively, in accordance with law. The Inspector in Charge, Karandhighi Police Station is directed to render necessary assistance to the Prescribed Authority/Block Development Officer so that the meeting scheduled on September 07, 2026 is held peacefully and without any disturbance from any corner whatsoever. The writ petition is dismissed. 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. 3 (Suvra Ghosh,J) 4