Shri.Nawin Kumar Lakra And ANR v. The Lt.Governor And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/83/2025 Shri Nawin Kumar Lakra and another Vs The Lieutenant Governor and others Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Ms. K. Bhawani ... for the petitioners Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty,Sr.Adv.

Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondent nos.1 to 5 Ms. G. Mini ... for the respondent No.6 February 26, 2025 [SR] Item no.5 1.

Affidavit of service is already on record.

2.

Ms. K. Bhawani, learned counsel lead by Ms. Anjili Nag, learned senior counsel appears for the petitioners. Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appears for the respondent nos.1 to 5. Ms. G. Mini, learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 6, the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. 3.

This is the second round of writ litigation arising out of a motion for no confidence relating to a particular Gram Panchayat.

4.

The first writ petition, WPA/680/2024 was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench by its order dated December 13, 2024, Annexure P-4 at page 26 to the writ petition with the following observations and directions :- "8. As an issue has been raised with regard to the procedural irregularities in conducting the meeting for removal of the Pradhan, accordingly, the same is required to be ascertained by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti.

9. In view of the above, leave is granted to the petitioner to make a formal representation before the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti highlighting all his grievance and depicting procedural irregularities/lapses in the process of his removal.

10. In the event a representation is filed by the petitioner by 17.12.2024, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti shall take steps to decide the issue upon perusal of the records and upon giving an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties at the earliest but positively within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

11. Till a decision is taken by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, the no confidence motion that has been passed will be given effect to.

12. Learned advocate for the petitioner shall forthwith communicate this order to the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti.

13. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."

5.

Pursuant to and in terms of the directions of the Coordinate Bench, the petitioner submitted his representation dated December 16, 2024, Annexure P-5 at page 29 to the writ petition.

6.

The respondent no.4, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties, by its order dated January 13, 2025 at page 39 to the writ petition, had decided the issue with the following observations and directions.

"In view of the above, the entire process followed by the Gram Panchayat regarding the removal of the Pradhan consequent to the no-confidence motion is hereby set aside. Accordingly, undersigned recommends that members of the Gram Pancahyat initiate a fresh noconfidence motion against Pradhan, in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of the Panchayat Regulations and the applicable Rules. The following steps must be observed:

1. A proper notice must be served to all concerned members, clearly specifying the date, time and venue of the meeting.

2. The Pradhan must be given a fair opportunity to present his case and respond to any allegations beore any decision is made.

3. The initiation and completion of the fresh no-confidence motion process must be concluded within 45 days from the date of this order to ensure timely resolution.

4. The Panchayat Secretary shall ensure that the entire process of the no-confidence motion adheres to the relevant Panchayat Regulations and Rules."

7.

At this juncture, the instant second writ petition has been filed by the members of the concerned Gram Panchayat praying for mandamus to be issued upon the respondent no.5 to issue notice to call for Gram Sabha meeting forthwith in order to conclude the process of no confidence motion against the Pradhan along with other consequential prayers. In the alternative, it is also prayed that Deputy Commissioner/Secretary Panchayat be directed to conduct an enquiry in respect of the present issue and if satisfied with the contention of the petitioner, then to direct the Panchayat Secretary to call for Gram Shaba meeting for conducting process of the no confidence motion against the Pradhan. 8.

Ms. K. Bhawani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the act and conduct of the Pradhan was such that the members of the Panchayat had lost faith and trust on him and as such the no confidence motion was brought.

9.

Referring to the order dated January 13, 2025 passed by the respondent no.4, she submits that, if the directions made therein are followed strictly in accordance with law, the grievance of the members will be redressed.

10.

Ms. G. Mini, learned counsel appearing for the Pradhan submits that the petitioners were the persons who have caused

the disturbance and resistance while the no confidence motion was about to be invoked. The petitioners, as the members of the Panchayat, have not cooperated with the Pradhan while holding meeting for commencing the process of no confidence motion. The petitioners had acted in a manner which is totally illegal and wrongful. After the petitioners left the meeting, when the Pradhan has commenced the process of no confidence motion, there was no further call on it. She further submits that the entire vediography of the meeting is available with the Pradhan, which shall corroborate the statements made by her. 11.

Referring to the said order dated January 13, 2025 passed by the respondent no.4, Ms. Mini, learned counsel submits that the directions made therein are in violation of the relevant provisions of the statute, rules and regulations. There cannot be any second no confidence motion.

12.

Therefore, she submits that the directions made in the said order dated January 13, 2025 passed by the respondent no.4 cannot be directed to be carried out as the same are in violation of the provisions of law.

13.

Ms. G.Mini further submits that by a letter dated January 16, 2025, a copy of which is placed before this Court and is taken on record, Pradhan has made a further representation challenging the said decision dated January 13, 2025 of the respondent no.4 14.

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 5, referring to Annexure P-10 at page 48 to the writ petition, submits that those are the events which had actually happened when the no confidence motion was moved against the Pradhan on January 17, 2025.

15.

In reply, Ms. K. Bhawani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has denied and disputed the submissions made by Ms.G.Mini, learned counsel and Mr.Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior counsel.

16.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court is convinced at least to the extent that there is a serious doll-drum in running the affairs of the administration of the concerned Gram Panchayat.

17.

Pursuant to the directions of the Coordinate Bench, as referred to above, the said order was passed by the respondent no.4 dated January 13, 2025. None of the parties have challenged the said order.

18.

An executive order and direction passed and made in pursuance of a direction of the Coordinate Bench, unless challenged in accordance with law and is quashed in accordance with law, the same remains in its full force and effect.

19.

The letter shown to this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the Pradhan dated January 16, 2025, as referred to above, is merely a protest of the Pradhan recorded by way of a letter which was submitted to the respondent no.4 alleging certain illegalities, alleged to be there in the said order dated January 13, 2025 passed by the respondent no.4. Such letter cannot be construed to be a challenge to the said executive order dated January 13, 2025. So long the said executive order dated January 13, 2025 remains in its full force and effect, this Court is of the view that the directions made therein are necessarily required to be carried out.

20.

The record further shows that Annexure P-6 at page 41 to the writ petition is a notice dated January 17, 2025 which is subsequent to the said order dated January 13, 2025 issued by one member of the Gram Panchayat, who has brought the no confidence motion one again.

21.

Annexure P-8 at page -44 to the writ petition shows that following the said requisition for no confidence motion, the Pradhan had issued a notice dated January 28, 2025 fixing the special meeting on January 31, 2025 to carry out the said no confidence motion.

22.

Up to this stage, the parties are ad idem. Hence, following the directions of the respondent no. 4 dated January 13, 2025, the next steps should be the starting point for further action, if not done already.

23.

In the event, the further process has not been done, then, the same should be carried out and completed positively within a further period of four weeks by the Gram Panchayat from the date of communication of this order.

24.

Whether it is already done and completed or whether it is required to be done and completed, as directed above, the respondent no.5 shall immediately file a report before the Assistant Commissioner, Mayabunder positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order to the Panchayat, as already directed above. 25.

The Assistant Commissioner, Mayabunder then shall take all necessary and consequential steps, in accordance with law depending upon the report to be submitted by the respondent no.5. and the petitioners and the other members of the

Panchayat shall render their cooperation in all respect to carry out the direction made herein.

26.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the allegations and counter allegations of the parties. 27.

Since the affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

28.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition WPA/83/2025 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

( Aniruddha Roy, J. )