12 jdt. 03.09.2026 jb. WPA 11768 of 2026 (Sahana Biswas vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Golam Mostafa Mr. Tarasankar Samanta Mr. Subir Sabud Mr. Surajit Maity Kazi Asif Iqbal …. For the Petitioner Mr. Madhu Jana Mr. Rahul Agarwala …. For the State Shahan Shah Mr. Soumen Barman Md. Shahjahan …. For the Private Respondents The petitioner who is the erstwhile Sabhapati of Domkal Panchayat Samiti has assailed the procedure whereby she has been removed from the office on two fold grounds. First, the motion is stigmatic. Second, signatures of some of the requisitionists in the motion are fake/forged. Opposing such allegation, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that all the members/requisitionists put their signatures in the no confidence motion on their own accord which were verified by the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner participated in the meeting and cast her vote in her favour. Therefore, she is debarred from challenging the procedure after being removed from office. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the authority in Padmini Singha vs. State of Assam & Others 2 reported in 2018 AIR (SC) 4590 in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the State submits that upon receipt of the motion, the Prescribed Authority verified the signatures in the motion and upon his satisfaction with regard thereto, issued the notice of meeting. It is a fact that the petitioner has been removed from the office of Sabhapati of the Panchayat Samiti pursuant to a no confidence motion submitted by the members of the Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner participated in the said motion. The motion reads that the petitioner is unable to perform her duty efficiently which has resulted in displeasure of the people. It is trite law that a motion which castes any aspersion on the character of the office bearer and may tend to affect her future political prospects should be considered to be stigmatic. According to Mitra’s Legal and Commercial Dictionary, 6th Edition, ‘stigma’ is something that detracts from the character or reputation of a person, a mark, sign, etc. indicating that something is not considered normal or standard. It is a blemish, defect, disgrace, disrepute, imputation, mark of disgrace or shame and mark or label indicating deviation from a norm. In the context of an order of termination or compulsory retirement of a government servant stigma would mean a statement in the order indicating his misconduct or lack of integrity. 3 In the present case, the contents of the motion cannot be termed as stigma against the petitioner. Therefore the motion cannot be held to be invalid on such score. The Prescribed Authority has verified the signatures of the requisitionists in the motion prior to issuance of notice of meeting. None of the requisitionists has come forward to challenge the genuineness of his/her signature in the motion. The signatures in the motion can, therefore, be held to be correct and genuine. Over and above all, the petitioner has participated in the motion and has chosen to file the present application only after her removal from the office. In view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the authority in Padmini Singha (supra), the petitioner is debarred from challenging the procedure after actively participating in the same. Her participation in the motion amounts to acceptance of the motion by her. She is not entitled to challenge the same after the motion has been decided against her. The writ petition being devoid of merit, is 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. 4 Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)