IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APELLATE SIDE The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH WPA 22444 of 2026 Sarifa Khatun & Ors. v/s. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioners: Adv. Md. Sarwar Jahan, Adv. Shahan Shah, Adv. Shahjahan Adv. Sanjita Sarkar For the State: Adv. Bidhyak Lahiri, Adv. Sudipta Ghosh For the Private Respondents: Adv. Robiul Islam, Adv. Jayed Hossain, Adv. Raju Mondal, Adv. M. Rahaman, Hearing concluded on: 21.09.2026 Judgment delivered on: 25.09.2026 SUVRA GHOSH, J. :- 1. The petitioners are members of Dhoradaha-II Gram Panchayat and submitted a no confidence motion for removal of the Pradhan of the Panchayat on 23rd June, 2026 pursuant to which date of meeting was fixed by the Prescribed Authority on 15th July, 2026. The petitioners sought police assistance for holding the meeting in a writ petition being WPA 16314 of 2026. By an order passed on 14th July, 2026, this Court directed the Inspector-in-Charge, Thanarpara police station to render necessary assistance to the Prescribed Authority so that the meeting was 2 held peacefully without any disturbance from any corner. The Pradhan approached this Court in a writ petition being WPA 16229 of 2026 assailing the no confidence motion, which was dismissed by an order passed on 14th July, 2026. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 07.07.2026, the petitioners were threatened with loss of their life and property by unknown anti-social elements who restrained them from attending the meeting. They were constrained to submit a letter in this regard before the Prescribed Authority, Superintendent of Police, Nadia and the Inspector-in Charge, Thanarpara Police Station on 8th July, 2026, requesting them to take appropriate steps to ensure the safety and security of the petitioners and their family members. No step was taken by the said authorities pursuant to the request of the petitioners. The petitioners approached this Court in a writ petition being WPA 16314 of 2026 seeking police assistance and by an order passed on 14th July, 2026, this Court directed the Inspector-in-Charge, Thanarpara Police Station to render necessary assistance to the Prescribed Authority so that the meeting was held peacefully without any disturbance from any corner. 3. On the date of meeting, the petitioners were threatened not to leave their respective residence, their mobile phones were snatched and they were detained in their respect houses for which they were unable to attend the meeting. They subsequently learnt that though sufficient number of police personnel were present at the venue of the meeting, no elected member including the Pradhan of the Panchayat was present in the meeting and as such, no meeting was held. The petitioners submitted a fresh motion 3 before the Prescribed Authority on the same ground on 7th August, 2026 which was not accepted by the Prescribed Authority in view of the embargo laid down in Section 12(11) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. 4. Learned counsel has submitted that the Presiding Officer of the meeting was present in the meeting. But he is not an elected member of the Panchayat and is not entitled to vote. In the absence of any elected member of the Panchayat, there was no meeting at all. The petitioners sought a direction upon the Prescribed Authority to convene a meeting pursuant to the motion dated 7th August, 2026 and conclude the proceedings n accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the authorities in Md. Ali Reza v/s. State of West Bengal reported in 2012 Supreme (Cal) 147; Punjab University, Chandigarh v/s. Vijay Singh Lamba reported in 1976 AIR (SC) 1441 and Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings, 11th edition in support of his contention. 6. Speaking for the private respondent/Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent has submitted that since the meeting was convened on 15th July, 2026 and could not be held due to lack of quorum, a fresh motion is barred under Section 12(11) of the Act of 1973. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the authority in Rashmi Singh v/s the State of Bihar and Others reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) 12490 of 2024 in support of his contention. 4 7. It is not in dispute that though the Presiding Officer of the meeting was present in the meeting on 15th July, 2026, no elected member of the Panchayat attended the meeting. 8. Section 12(11) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 is set out for better understanding of the issue. 12(11) “If the motion is not carried by the majority of its existing members or the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion for the removal of the same office bearer shall be taken into cognizance within a period of one year from the date appointed for such meeting.” 9. In other words, if the meeting is not held for want of quorum, no subsequent motion for removal of the same office bearer can be taken into cognizance within one year. The term “meeting” has been defined in Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings, 11th edition to constitute more than one person. A meeting of one person which can in some circumstances apply in company law, has no place in local authority practice. 10. A similar issue has been dealt with by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the authority in Md. Ali Reza (supra) wherein it has been held that in the absence of any elected member of the concerned Gram Panchayat, there can be no meeting at all. The question of quorum or the lack of it would have arisen only if there was a meeting and not otherwise. In absence of such meeting there was no embargo and/or fetter on the part of the Prescribed Authority to have called a meeting for removal of the 5 Pradhan of the Panchayat to be held in terms of the requisition notices issued by the petitioners. 11. The ratio decidendi of the said judgment is applicable in the present case. Since admittedly not a single elected member of the Panchayat was present in the meeting, it can be held that there was no meeting at all. The authority in Rashmi Singh (supra) deals with the issue of a no confidence motion vis-a-vis number of members voting in favour of the motion. The fact of the present case can be distinguished from that of the said authority. 12. The number of members present in the meeting or voting in favour of/against the motion is relevant only when there is a meeting and not otherwise. 13. Since there was no meeting on 15th July, 2026, the Prescribed Authority ought to have acted in terms of the fresh motion submitted on 7th August, 2026 in accordance with the provision laid down under Section 12 of the Act of 1973. Section 12(11) of the Act is not attracted herein. 14. Since the time frame prescribed under Section 12(10) of the Act has expired, liberty is granted to the petitioners to submit a fresh motion before the Prescribed Authority in terms of Section 12 of the Act. In the event such motion has submitted, the Prescribed Authority shall proceed with the same in accordance with the said provision of law, particularly the time frame stipulated therein. 15. The writ petition being WPA 22444 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of. 16. There shall however be no order as to costs. 6 17. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. 18. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J)