15.09.2026 rc/ct.no.15 Item No.11 WPA No. 25242 of 2026 Tushar Rajbanshi Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Sr. Adv. Kamalesh Bhattacharya Adv. Alokesh Dolai Adv. Moupriya Dey Adv. Himanshu Dolai Adv. Rima Mondal Adv. Sawant Chanda ..for the petitioner Adv. Anup Dasgupta Adv. S. Bhattacharjee ….for the State Adv. Nilotpal Chatterjee Adv. Amrita Lal Chatterjee Adv. Hemanto Kumar Das Adv. Satyaki Banerjee …for the Respondent Nos. 8 to 16 Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner who is the Pradhan of Jajigram Gram Panchayat has assailed the no confidence motion submitted by the private respondents/members of the Panchayat seeking his removal on the ground that though the motion was submitted on August 24, 2026, the Prescribed Authority has fixed the date of meeting on September 16, 2026 which is beyond 15 working days from the date of submission of the motion and in violation of Section 12(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. Also, an application submitted by the petitioner under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act against three of the requistionists is pending. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that counting the number of days from August 24, 2026 to September 16, 2026 excluding the holidays, it is evident that the date of meeting has been fixed within 15 working days of submission of the motion, in compliance with Section 12(4) of the Act. This Court is in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the private respondents. The date of meeting has in fact been fixed within 15 working days from the date of submission of the motion. An application filed under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act has no nexus whatsoever with an application under Section 12 of the Act. It is trite law that unless the members or any of them are removed/disqualified by a formal order passed by the competent authority, mere pendency of an application seeking their disqualification shall not stand in the way of their participating in the functions of the Panchayat since such restriction shall amount to their disqualification even before they are actually disqualified in accordance with law. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Since the meeting is scheduled to be held on September 16, 2026, the Officer in Charge, Paikar Police 2 Station, being the 6th respondent herein, is directed to render necessary assistance to the Prescribed Authority so that the meeting is held peacefully and without any disturbance from any corner whatsoever. The police authority shall ensure safe passage of the members including the petitioners herein to the venue of the meeting so that they are able to cast their votes safely, freely and independently. 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. (Suvra Ghosh,J) 3