40 1100..0099..22002266 Ct. No.15 b.das WPA 24922 of 2026 Rabiya Bibi Vs. The State of W. B. & Ors. Mr. Anindya Halder Md. Anwar Hossain Ms. Benajir Hasna Mr. Aliul Islam Mr. Sadid Haider …for the petitioner. Mr. Robiul Islam Mr. M. Rahaman …for the respondent nos. 11-17 & 30. Mr. Tapasi Palit Sinha Mr. Monojit Chakraborti …for the State. Learned counsel for the private respondents undertakes to submit his Vakalatnama by tomorrow. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner who is the Pradhan of Malihati Gram Panchayat has assailed the no confidence motion as well as notice issued by the Prescribed Authority on two-fold grounds. First, the motion contains signature of one Rauf Ali who is not a member of the Panchayat. Rauf Ali Sk. is one of the members and is distinct and different from Rauf Ali. The petitioner issued a letter to the Prescribed Authority intimating the same, but no step has been taken by the said authority in this regard till date. Second, Form 1E of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975 enumerates a form of notice of 2 meeting of motion for removal of Pradhan/Upa Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Sabhapati/Sahakari Sabhapati of Panchayat Samiti and Sabhadhipati/Sahakari Sabhadhipati of Mahakuma/Zilla Parishad. In the notice of meeting issued by the Prescribed Authority on 1st September, 2026 the words “removal of’ have been struck off and the notice has been issued for lack of confidence against the Pradhan. The notice is not in conformity with form 1 E of the 1975 Rules and cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that 9 out of 21 members of the Panchayat have signed the no confidence motion. Even if the signature of Rauf Ali is ignored, the motion can still be held to be submitted by one-third majority of the Panchayat. It appears that one Rauf Ali is named in the motion and has also signed therein, though one Rauf Ali Sk. is a member of the Panchayat. The Prescribed Authority issued notice of meeting upon being satisfied with regard to the signatures in the motion. Also, the said member has not challenged his signature as fake/forged. The omission of “Sk.” in the name and signature of the member in the motion can be termed as a mere technical irregularity and can under no circumstances render the motion invalid. The notice of meeting issued in form 1E is in respect of the motion submitted due to lack of confidence against 3 the Pradhan. Removal of the Pradhan is a consequence of such lack of confidence. Striking off the words “removal of” in the notice cannot affect the merits/contents of the notice. The objections raised on behalf of the petitioner are extremely hyper-technical and cannot be entertained. The motion or the notice has not been assailed by the petitioner on merits. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the writ petition being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)