21.09.2026 SL No.12 Court No.12 (cp) MAT 1583 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Golsan Bibi Vs. Aapejul Sekh & Ors. Mr. Pratip Kumar Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Tridip Mishra Ms. Maitrayee Chatterjee … for the appellant. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Sr. Advocate Md. Hafiz Ali Mr. Partha Sarathi Das Mr. S.M. K. E. Sadique Ms. Purnima Panda Ms. Maria Sarwari … for the respondent nos. 1 to 15. Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. AGP Mr. Sourya Mukherjee Mr. Ankit Kumar Mishra …for the State. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated September 14, 2026, passed in WPA 25099 of 2026. By the order impugned, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition, inter alia, directing the prescribed authority to hold the meeting for removal of the pradhan. 2. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate for the appellant, contends that the order of Her Lordship offends the provisions of Sections 12(4) and 12(10) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. 2 3. We have perused the order impugned. We agree with the finding of Her Lordship to the extent that, even if one of the requisitionists was forced to sign the requisition under threat, majority of the members were against the pradhan and, as such, the requisition could not be faulted on such disputed question. However, we find that Her Lordship condoned the act of cancellation of the meeting by the prescribed authority and upheld the decision dated August 25, 2026. Her Lordship held that, the prescribed authority had sought for police help, but the police help could not be provided on the scheduled date, i.e., September 7, 2026. As the police authorities were unable to render assistance to the prescribed authority in spite of requisitions being made, cancellation was justified under Section 12(4) of the said. 4. Her Lordship relied on a decision of the Division Bench passed in MAT No. 992 of 2022, in support of the contention that if the prescribed authority holds the meeting beyond the period of 30 days on account of an adjournment for reasons beyond his control, the impugned motion should also go through and a meeting could be held on the basis thereof, nevertheless belatedly. Accordingly, Her Lordship extended the period within which the meeting should be held. 3 5. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate for the writ petitioners/respondents, submits that requisite number of members had brought the motion. The prescribed authority was satisfied with regard to the compliances under Section 12(3) of the said Act. Thereafter, the notice was issued within the time prescribed by law. The prescribed authority requested for police assistance, which was not given. Under such circumstances, the prescribed authority decided to cancel the meeting. 6. Considered the submissions. The law permits cancellation of a meeting under certain circumstances. It is also true that the members of the gram panchayat are entitled to remove the pradhan if they have lost confidence in the leader. This is a part of the democratic process which the law provides. However, the prescribed authority is required to act within the parameters of the statute. We have already held that inability to obtain police assistance cannot be a ground for cancellation of the meeting, unless the prescribed authority records his satisfaction, upon assessing the ground reality that, without police assistance, holding the meeting for removal of the pradhan would lead to violence and the prescribed authority was not in a position to control such situation. 4 7. In this case, although the learned Judge had opined that the non-availability of the police force was a good ground, we do not find that such observation of Her Lordship is backed by any consideration of the factual reality. The order of cancellation only indicates that police force would not be available on the date of the meeting. The prescribed authority could have adjourned the meeting upon recording his satisfaction that due to non-availability of the police force, it would not be possible for him to hold the meeting, as he was anticipating law and order problems. 8. Police assistance is not a statutory right guaranteed to the prescribed authority while discharging the statutory functions under Section 12 of the said Act. In exceptional situations, if the prescribed authority is not in a position to control the political situation, he may ask for police assistance. This can only be a request. That does not mean that in discharge of his statutory functions the State administration has to give him further protection and assistance. If this is the argument of the prescribed authority and the State respondents, we have no other option, but to opine that the State administration is failing. It is also important to record that, by such cancellations, the leader who has lost the support of the majority is continuing in office. We do not know whether it is a ploy on the part of the prescribed authority to support 5 the pradhan in a round-about way or whether he is actually not capable of discharging his statutory functions. 9. Under such circumstances, we set aside the order of Her Lordship only on the ground of violation of the statutory mandate and misappreciation of the law. Non-availability of the police force is not a circumstance beyond the control of the prescribed authority to hold the meeting on the schedule date, unless specific instances are borne out by the records indicating that the situation actually requires strict vigil by the police. 10. However, the right of the requisitionists to remove the pradhan is permitted in law. They are granted liberty to bring a fresh motion. The prescribed authority shall act in accordance with law. The question of adjournment or cancellation of the meeting shall not arise. The pradhan shall accept service of the motion. If the pradhan avoids service of the motion, copy of the same shall also be affixed at a conspicuous place in the gram panchayat’s office. This process will be followed by the requisitionists in addition to serving/delivering the motion in the office of the gram panchayat and sending the same to the residential address of the pradhan. 11. The Superintendent of Police will ensure that in the event there is an anticipation of law and order 6 problem on the date scheduled for the meeting on the basis of a fresh requisition, adequate police protection shall be given. 12. The requisition which was brought and all consequential steps are set aside. 13. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 14. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)