Sanchita Das v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

10.8.2021 Court No. 19 Item no.14 sn WPA No. 12015 of 2021 SANCHITA DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

(via video conference) Mr. Kallol Bose Mr. Alokesh Dalai ...for the petitioner Mr. K.J. Tewari Ms. Rajlakshmi Ghatak ..for the respondent no.7 Mr. Raja Saha Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mullick ..for the State None appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 7 to 30. Let the affidavit of service be taken on record.

The petitioner is one of the requisitionists who had filed a requisition before the prescribed authority on April 30, 2021. The respondent nos.8 to 16 are also other requisitionists. The requisition was for removal of the Upa-Pradhan of Bethuadahari No. 1 Gram Panchayat. Mr. Tewari represents the UpaPradhan. The petitioner wants the meeting for removal of the Upa-Pradhan to be held and prays for necessary directions.

The allegation of the petitioner is that the requisition was brought on April 30, 2021 and the date for holding of the meeting was fixed on May 18, 2021.According to the petitioner, the said meeting was not held due to pandemic situation and

thereafter the time limit prescribed under section 12(10) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 expired.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the requisitionists have a right to bring a requisition in terms of Section 12(2) of the said Act and they also have a right to remove the Upa-Pradhan if they have lost confidence in the Upa-Pradhan.

Mr. Tewari learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Upa-Pradhan submits that the writ petition does not merit consideration as the requisition notice has lost its force. He further submits that in other meetings, members have also supported the Upa-Pradhan on certain issues.

In my opinion, the provision for removing an elected representative such as Upa-Pradhan is of fundamental importance to ensure the democratic functioning of the institution as well as to ensure the transparency and accountability in the functions performed by the elected representatives. These institutions must run on democratic principles. In democracy all persons heading public bodies can continue provided they enjoy the confidence of the persons who comprise such bodies. This is the essence of democratic republicanism. If the UpaPradhan has lost support of the majority of the members, he cannot remain in office for a single day.

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties as the statutory time to complete the process has already expired, the requisition and the subsequent actions have become infructuous. The requisition has accordingly lost its force.

This writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the requisitionists to bring a fresh motion in terms of Section 12(2) of the said Act, 1973. If such requisition is brought, the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself with regard to the compliance of Section 12(2) of the said Act and then act and proceed in terms of Section 12(3) and 12(4) onwards to reach the same it to its logical conclusion within the period mentioned in the statute.

This Court is not making any observation on the right of the Upa-Pradhan to continue in his office as the said issue will be decided at the meeting itself. If necessary, the prescribed authority may seek police protection. Police protection shall be rendered without any delay or laches if called for by the prescribed authority. The bar under Section 12(11) of the said Act shall not be applicable.

This writ petition is disposed of.

There will be, however, no order as to costs. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)