07.09.2026 Item ADSL-3 Ct. No. 39 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA AN CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 24118 of 2026 Sima Bibi vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Tanmoy Chattopadhyay … for the petitioner Mr. Sarwar Jahan Mr. Anindya Ghosh Mr. Souvik Das … for respondent no. 10 Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu Mr. Ankur Sharma … for the State 1. Affidavit of service, filed on behalf of the petitioner in court today, is taken on record. 2. The petitioner is an erstwhile member of the Alipur II Gram Panchayat, Malda. A proceeding was initiated against her under Section 11(1)(d) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (in short, ‘the said Act’) to remove/disqualify her as member of aforesaid Gram Panchayat. 3. A notice was issued to her on account of a hearing pursuant to the order passed in the earlier writ petition filed by respondent no. 10, being WPA 14255 of 2026 [Mst. Royesha Bibi vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.]. 4. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, the learned Single Judge directed the prescribed 2 Authority and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Malda, being respondent no. 7 therein, to consider and dispose of the application for removal within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order, granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including the petitioner and the private respondent, in accordance with law. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the final order of the prescribed authority, passed under Section 11(1)(d) of the said Act, thereby removing her as member of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat on the allegation that she was absent from consecutive meetings held on 13.01.2026, 25.02.2026, 08.06.2026 and 11.06.2026. He further raises an objection that no statutory notice was served upon her before such meetings. However, the authority relied upon the clarification given by the Additional District Magistrate, Panchayat, Malda, wherein he clearly stated that notice of the meetings was served upon her contact through the “Meeting Management System (M.M.S.)” and the same was delivered by the Panchayat and Rural Development Authority, Govt. of West Bengal vide Memo No. 902(2)/P/Con dated 07.08.2026. 6. Learned Counsel further submits that such memo was never served upon her prior to disposal of the proceeding, so that she would lose an opportunity to 3 refute the contention of the Additional District Magistrate, Panchayat, Malda. 7. Learned advocate further submits that prior to initiation of the proceedings against her, and while hearing, the authority violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and she should be allowed to participate in the next meeting on 8th September, 2026 as a member for election of the new Pradhan. If such opportunity would not be provided to her, she would be highly prejudiced, and her fundamental right would also be violated. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 10 draws the attention of this Court to the application filed by the respondent no. 10 for removal of the petitioner, where all the minutes of the meetings were also annexed that clearly show that the notice was served upon all the parties concerned. 9. In addition, learned counsel further submits that the order impugned, passed under Section 11(1)(d) of the said Act, is appealable under Section 11(2) of the said Act before the learned District Magistrate and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. 10. It is further submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner, as to whether she has received notice or not, is a disputed question of fact and the writ court cannot enter into disputed questions of fact in exercising a writ jurisdiction. 4 11. Learned advocate representing the State also submits that this writ petition is not maintainable and leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court. 12. In reply, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon a judgment reported in (2023) 109 GSTR 402 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 [Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors.], particularly, paragraphs 6 and 8 to support his contention that even if there is an alternative remedy, the writ Court can entertain the writ petition, subject to the fulfilment of conditions stipulated in Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the judgment. Those paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow: - “6. At the end of the last century, this court in paragraph 15 of its decision reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai) carved out the exceptions on the existence whereof a writ court would be justified in entertaining a writ petition despite the party approaching it not having availed the alternative remedy provided by the statute. The same read as under: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice; (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (iv) where the vires of an Act is challenged. 8. That apart, we may also usefully refer to the decisions of this Court reported in (1977) 2 SCC 724 (State of U. P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.) : (1977) 39 STC 355 (SC) and (2000) 10 SCC 482 (Union of India v. State of Haryana). What appears on a plain reading of the former decision is that whether a certain item falls within an entry in a sales tax statute, raises a pure question of law and if investigation into facts is unnecessary, the High Court could entertain a writ petition in its discretion even though the alternative remedy was not availed of; and, unless exercise of discretion is shown to be unreasonable or perverse, this Court would not 5 interfere. In the latter decision, this court found the issue raised by the appellant to be pristinely legal requiring determination by the High Court without putting the appellant through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy. What follows from the said decisions is that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available.” 13. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, and on perusing the materials on record and the impugned order, this Court finds that several opportunities were given to the petitioner before hearing. She sought adjournment twice before the authority before passing the final order. The petitioner was removed from her post on sound and valid reasons. 14. The issue raised by the petitioner that she did not receive the notice prior to the meetings wholly falls under the element of disputed question of fact, and it is not possible for this Court under writ jurisdiction to decide the said issue as it requires full-fledged trail to ascertain the same. Clarification sought by the prescribed authority and clarification given by the Additional District Magistrate, Panchayat, Malda are prima facie sufficient to indicate that she has received the notices. Furthermore, it is also an admitted fact that she did not attend the meetings on four consecutive dates and such ground is sufficient for removal from the post as per statute. 6 15. Considering the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. 16. The allegations, whatsoever made in the writ petition is deemed not to be admitted by the respondent authorities since no affidavits have been called for or filed by the parties in this case. 17. It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appellate authority, if so advised, in accordance with law for her grievances. 18. With the above observations and directions, WPA 24118 of 2026 stands dismissed. 19. Consequently, connected applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 20. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 21. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 22. The concerned Department is directed to supply urgent certified Photostat copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)