23.09.2026 Court No. 12 Item No.10 Cp MAT 1279 of 2026 With CAN 2 of 2026 Md. Naimuddin & Ors. VS Md Jiyaul Hoque & Ors. Mr. Gangadhar Das, Mr. Tanmoy Chattopadhyay, … for the Appellants. Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Mr. Masud Mallik Mr. Kaustav Ghosh … for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Dibasish Basu, Ld. AGP., Ms. Sneha Dutta, Mr. Purnendu Das …for the State. Mr. Nishant Mandal Mr. Umenun Khan ……for the Respondent no. 9. 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated July 30, 2026, passed in WPA 18724 of 2026. By the order impugned, the learned Judge directed the meeting for removal of the Sabhapati to be held on the scheduled date at 3 pm instead of 12 noon. The writ petition was filed by one Md. Jiyaul Hoque, one of the members and requisitionists who brought the motion. The appellants were not made parties to the writ petition although they are democratically elected members of the panchayat 2 samiti. They were holding office upon being elected by the people and they are the representatives of the local people, living within the territorial jurisdiction of the said panchayat samiti. 2. They contended before the court that the learned Judge rescheduled a cancelled meeting in their absence. Upon receipt of the notice of cancellation of the meeting issued by the sub-divisional officer on July 27, 2026, the appellants presumed that the meeting for removal of the Sabhapati would not be held. They were not able to attend the meeting which was scheduled by the court at 3 pm on July 30, 2026, as they did not have adequate time to attend the meeting. 3. At the time of admission of the appeal we held that the members had a right to vote. Such right is statutorily provided. The members also have a right to a notice from the prescribed authority, informing them about the meeting. The order impugned curtailed the rights of these members who were not aware of the rescheduling of the meeting. The provision of the statute was also violated. Their democratic right was denied. 4. We passed directions for affidavits. We restrained the election of the new Sabhapati on the last occasion. Later, it was informed to us that, the Sabhapati was removed with majority vote and 3 even if the appellants were allowed to vote, the result of the meeting would be the same and the Sabhapati would be removed by the majority. The appellants were in the minority and their vote would not change the fate of the meeting. Thus, we vacated the interim order. We directed that the meeting of the next Sabhapati would be held but will be subject to the result of the appeal. 5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the respondent no. 1, has relied upon the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent no. 1, i.e. the writ petitioner, one of the requisitionists. 6. Learned advocate representing the prescribed authority relies on the affidavit in opposition, to show that the Sub-Divisional Officer had directed the Block Development Officer to inform all the members and they were allegedly informed over telephone. However, there is no document to show that any notice was served upon these members, informing them that the meeting had been rescheduled and was to be held on July 30, 2026 at 3pm. 7. We are not inclined to allow the learned advocate who appears for the Sabhapati, a right of audience. The Sabhapati has been removed. He may take appropriate steps with regard to his removal, as permitted by law. We are informed 4 that his writ petition challenging his removal has been dismissed. 8. This appeal is restricted to the right of the appellants, as members of the panchayat samiti, to vote at the meeting for removal of the Sabhapati. They had the right to be put on notice that the meeting for removal of the Sabhapati would be held on July 30, 2026, at 3 pm. One member moved the writ petition without impleading the other members as parties. The order impugned was passed without taking into consideration the rights and the compliances of law conferred under Section 101 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. Under such circumstances, the meeting was held contrary to the provisions of law and in the absence of those persons who had a right to be put on notice and cast their vote. The writ petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties. 9. Thus, the order of Her Lordship was violative of the principles of natural justice is set aside. The result of the meeting dated July 30, 2026 is also set aside. 10. We have already held that the right to bring a requisition is a democratic right, as is the right to participate in a meeting to be held on the basis of a requisition to be brought by some of the 5 members. Both the rights are provided under the law and one right cannot supersede the other. The meeting for election of the new Sabhapati cannot be held. The notice of such meeting is set aside. 11. Under such circumstances, the Sahakari Sabhapati will continue to discharge the duties of the Sabhapati. The requisitionists are at liberty to bring a fresh requisition. 12. Mr. Chakraborty submits that a requisition will be brought by September 24, 2026. The learned advocate for the Sub-Divisional Officer is present before the Court and he shall intimate his client that if the requisition is served upon the prescribed authority, and if the same is found to be in order and in accordance with the provisions of Section 101 of the said Act, a notice shall be issued to all members. The meeting should be held within 15 working days from the date of receipt of the motion. No cancellation or adjournment is permitted. 13. The Sabhapati will receive the motion. The requisitionists shall deliver the same in the office of the panchayat samiti and also send the same to the residential address of the Sabhapati. Apart from that, a copy of the motion shall be affixed at a conspicuous place in the office of the panchayat samiti and the Sabhapati should not avoid service. 6 14. The Sub-Divisional Officer, i.e., the prescribed authority is directed to adhere to the provisions of law and not use non-availability of police force as an excuse, to avoid holding such meeting. His actions have resulted in total failure of administration in the samiti and in the locality. We do not understand the obligations and compulsions of the Sub-Divisional Officer. His actions cannot be ignored and must be strictly dealt with by his superior authorities. 15. These observations have nothing to do with the competence of the learned advocate for the state respondents, who have tried their best to support the law. The highhandedness of the executive is beyond any defence by the learned advocate. One cannot defend the undefendable. 16. We have sent repeated requests to the Secretary, Department of Panchayats and Rural Development to look into the affairs of the prescribed authorities (BDO and SDOs) in Malda and Murshidabad. They have repeatedly frustrated motions after motions, which were brought by the members to remove either the Pradhan or the Sabhapati for reasons beyond comprehension. They have created a situation where the samitis and the gram panchayats are not able to function and render service to the people of the locality. 7 17. Under such circumstances, the appeal and the application are disposed of, with the observations which we expect shall be taken seriously. 18. Let this order be served upon the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development through the office of the learned Registrar General. A copy of this order shall be served by the learned advocate on record for the appellants in the office of the learned Advocate General. 19. The Superintendent of Police will assess the situation and, if necessary, deploy adequate police force on the date to be fixed for the meeting. The meeting shall be held without fail. 20. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)