RAY MUKHERJEE MAT 1105 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 Tafijul Hoque v. Mobarak Hossain With MAT 1106 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 Tafijul & Ors.

opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioners and the private respondents, in accordance with law. The decision the authority shall be communicated to the parties within a week thereof.” taken by

6. The operative portion of the said judgment, by which WPA 12941 of 2026 was disposed of, is as follows: “Upon consideration of the submission made on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the view that since the requisition notice has been signed by 15 out of 28 members of the Panchayat, even if the names of three members are struck out, the notice shall still remain valid since it shall contain the signatures of 1/3rd of the 4 existing members subject to the minimum of three members. In view of the time frame contemplated in Section 12 of the Act, the Prescribed Authority and Block Development Officer, Chanchal II Development Block, being the 5th respondent herein, is directed to convene the meeting within 10 days from the date of communication of this order and take the proceeding to its logical conclusion within the stipulated time frame laid down in the Act. The Officer in charge of Chanchal Police Station, being the 7th respondent herein, is directed the 5th respondent so that the meeting can be held peacefully and without any disturbance from any corner whatsoever. The writ petitions are disposed of.” to render necessary assistance

7. 28 members in the said Gram Panchayat were elected in the 2023 Panchayat elections.

8. The respondent nos. 1 to 15 in MAT 1105 of 2026 / writ petitioners in WPA 12941 of 2026 / members of the said Gram Panchayat [hereinafter referred to as ‘the requsitionists’] vide letter dated

22.05.2026, addressed to the Block Development Officer, Chanchal – II [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Prescribed Authority’] within the meaning of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Panchayat Act’], brought a ‘no confidence motion’ under Section 12[2] thereof for removal of the appellant in MAT 1105 of 2026 / the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Pradhan’].

9. The Prescribed Authority issued a notice dated 29.05.2026 fixing the date of the meeting for removal of the Pradhan on 09.06.2026.

10. Subsequently, the Prescribed Authority issued another notice dated 08.06.2026, whereby the meeting was postponed until further order on the basis of the information furnished by the Inspector – in – Charge, Chanchal Police Station, informing that adequate police force could not be made available on 09.06.2026.

11. In WPA 13361 of 2026, the Pradhan alleged that two members had not attended three consecutive meetings of the Panchayat despite service of notice upon them, for which they were required to be removed from their membership in terms of Section 11 of the Panchayat Act. The learned Single Judge, as already stated in the foregoing paragraph, directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to consider and dispose of the representation of the Pradhan, made in this behalf, in accordance with law, within the specified time mentioned therein.

12. In WPA 12941 of 2026, the requisitionists sought for a direction upon the Prescribed Authority to fix the date of the meeting in terms of Section 12[2] of the Panchayat Act and to conclude the proceeding within the stipulated time-frame. The learned Single Judge, as stated in the preceding paragraph, directed the Prescribed Authority to convene the meeting within 10 days from the date of communication of the order and further directed to take the proceeding to its logical conclusion within the stipulated time frame laid down in the Panchayat Act.

13. Pursuant to the order dated 22.06.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in connection with the writ petition WPA 12941 of 2026, the Prescribed Authority issued a notice dated 24.06.2026 fixing the meeting on 03.07.2026. The meeting for removal of the Pradhan was finally held on 03.07.2026 i.e. after a lapse of 42 days from the date of notice of motion dated 22.05.2026.

14. Both the appeals were taken up for consideration on 13.07.2026 and by an order, the Bench, inter alia, passed the following directions: “1. As we are informed that the meeting has been held pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge which is impugned before us, we are not inclined to interfere with the result of the meeting at this stage. However, we find from the order impugned dated June 22, 2026, passed in WPA 12941 of 2026, and WPA 13361 of 2026 that, the order of Her Lordship directing the prescribed authority to hold the meeting within 10 days from the date of communication of the order impugned, is contrary to the provisions of the statute. 2. In our, prima facie, view the Court could not have extended the time. Although, Her Lordship records that, upon considering the provisions of the statute, the time to hold the meeting is extended by 10 days from the date of the writ communication petitioners/requisitionists, the provisions of the statute are contrary to the findings of Her Lordship.

3. Under such circumstances, even if a new Pradhan is elected in the teeth of this proceeding, which is pending before us, such election shall abide by the result of the appeal. 4. It is made clear that, the newly elected Pradhan shall not take major financial and policy decisions, but will only take care of the day-to-day affairs of the gram panchayat. 5. List this appeal on 3rd August, 2026. 6. Affidavit-in-opposition shall be filed within a week from date. Reply thereto, if any, shall be filed within a week thereafter. 7. The prescribed authority shall also file affidavit-in- opposition or file the records.”

15. Pursuant to the above direction, the requisitionists / respondents filed an affidavit in opposition in connection with the stay application. The following paragraphs of the said affidavit are relevant for adjudication: “a) That the private respondents herein collectively represent 15 out of 28 members of the Jalalpur Gram Panchayat. Having lost confidence in the Pradhan of the said Panchayat, a representation for "no-confidence motion" u/s 12 of Panchayat Act was made to the Prescribed Authority by the private respondents herein on 22.05.2026. b) That on 29.05.2026, the Prescribed Authority issued a notice thereby conveying a meeting on 09.06.2026 for consideration of the motion for removal of the Pradhan on the ground of loss of confidence, in accordance with Sec 12(3) of the Panchayat Act. c) That the Prescribed Authority issued a memo vide no. 1435/1(33)/Chl-II dated 08.06.2026, thereby adjourning the meeting scheduled on 09.06.2026, on the ground of non-availability of police force. d) That the Prescribed Authority is empowered u/s 12(4) of the Panchayat Act, to postpone or cancel meeting of no- confidence, only if the following conditions are satisfied:- i) There exists an order or direction of competent Court for adjournment or cancellation of meeting referred to in Sec 12(3) of the Act; or ii) There exists a situation beyond the control of the Prescribed Authority. e) That in the instant case, there is no specific direction or order from any competent court for adjournment of the meeting of no-confidence. The meeting had been adjourned vide the notice dated 08.06.2026, which records that the Prescribed Authority, through a letter dated 02.06.2026, had requested the Chanchal Police Station for deployment of police force, which was refused by the concerned police authorities vide a letter dated 07.06.2026 on the ground that adequate police force could not be spared on 09.06.2026 due to administrative and law & order arrangement. f) That in view of the circumstances and the reasons recorded by the Prescribed Authority for adjourning the meeting of no-confidence motion, can conclusively held to be "reasons beyond his control" as contemplated u/s 12(4) of the Act, since no other orders or directions of any competent court exists permitting such act.”

16. Now, the question which falls for our consideration is, whether the learned Single Judge erred in directing the Prescribed Authority to hold the meeting beyond the statutory time limit prescribed, and whether the ground for postponement fell within the exceptions under Section 12(4).

17. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to state the provisions of Section 12 of the Panchayat Act: “[12. Motion of no confidence or removal of Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan.] --- (1)Subject to other provisions of this section, the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat may, at any time, be removed from his office by the majority of the existing members of the Gram Panchayat, referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (2A) of section 4, expressing their lack of confidence against the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan or recording their decision to remove the Pradhan or the Upa- Pradhan, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. (2)For the purpose of removal of the Pradhan or the Upa- Pradhan, one-third of the existing members referred to in sub-section (1) subject to a minimum of three members shall sign a motion in writing expressing their lack of confidence against the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan or recording their intention to remove the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan, indicating party affiliation or independent status of each of such members and either deliver the motion in person through any of the members or send it by registered post to the prescribed authority; one copy of the motion shall be delivered to the concerned office bearer either by hand or by registered post at the Gram Panchayat office and another copy shall be sent by registered post at his residential address. (3)The prescribed authority on receipt of the motion shall satisfy himself that it conforms to the requirements of sub- section (2) and on his satisfaction shall specially convene, by issue of notice, within five working days of the receipt of the motion, a meeting of the Gram Panchayat to be held in its office fixing date and hour of the meeting and sending such notice at least before clear seven days to each of its existing members for consideration of the motion and for taking a decision on it. (4)The meeting referred to in sub-section (3) shall be held on a working day which shall not be later than fifteen working days from the date of receipt of the motion by the prescribed authority and the meeting so convened shall not be adjourned or cancelled except in pursuance of an order or direction of a competent court or for any other reason beyond control of the prescribed authority. (5)Such meeting shall be presided over by an officer, as may be authorized by the prescribed authority, in the manner as may be directed by order by the State Government or as may be prescribed and the presiding officer before commencement of the meeting shall ensure that notice has been duly served to every member in the manner laid down in this behalf; quorum required for such meeting shall be more than fifty percent of the existing members referred to in sub-section (1) and the presiding officer shall not be entitled to vote at the meeting although he may advise on one or more points of law without expressing his own views. (6)If there is no consensus decision in the meeting, voting shall be held by open ballot wherein each participating member shall put his full signature or his left thumb impression to be attested by the leader, referred to in section 213A, of the same political party to which the member belongs or by the said presiding officer on the reverse side of the ballot paper. (7)The minutes of the meeting shall be written by the Secretary or in his absence, by any other official as authorized by the presiding officer. Such minutes shall record in brief names of the members present, the procedure followed, names of the members who voted for or against the motion and the decision adopted unanimously or by the majority of its existing members and shall be signed by him as well as by the presiding officer (8)After the minutes of the meeting is signed by the presiding officer, it shall be read over to all the attending members who shall thereafter put their signatures or left thumb impressions, as the case may be, on the minutes in confirmation of presiding officer shall again put his signature on the same document after recording the names of members, if any, the proceedings recorded. Then who have declined to sign or left earlier and thereafter he shall collect a copy of the minutes before leaving the premises. in his absence (9)(a)The Executive Assistant or Secretary of the Gram Panchayat shall, within three working days of the meeting, forward a copy of the minutes of the meeting to the prescribed authority. (b)The presiding officer shall also submit a separate report in writing along with a copy of the minutes of the meeting within the aforesaid time to the prescribed authority. (10) On receipt of the minutes of the meeting and the report under sub-section (9), the prescribed authority shall, within next five working days, take such action as he may deem fit and the entire process commencing from submission of motion to the prescribed authority upto the action finally taken by him shall be completed within thirty days. (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. (12)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no meeting for removal of the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan under this section shall be convened within a period of one year from the date of election of the Pradhan or the Upa- Pradhan either at the first meeting following reconstitution of Gram Panchayat or for filling casual vacancy in the said office.]”

18. Section 12[4] of the Panchayat Act has two parts – the first part clearly mandates a mandatory time limit for holding a meeting, which shall not be later than ‘fifteen working days’ from the date of receipt of the motion by the Prescribed Authority. We shall discuss in the succeeding paragraphs, the intention of the legislature in using the expression ‘shall not be later than’, in the first part of Section 12[4] of the Panchayat Act. The latter part of Section 12[4] speaks about two contingencies i.e. the meeting so convened shall not be either adjourned or cancelled except [i] in pursuance of an order or direction of a competent court or [ii] for any other reason beyond the control of the Prescribed Authority.

19. The principles as to whether the provisions of a statute is mandatory or directory are well settled. The intention of the legislature and not the language in which such intent is clothed, is the relevant factor.

20. In Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 338, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as follows: “36. We are unable to subscribe to the above view. In our judgment, mere use of word “may” or “shall” is not conclusive. The question whether a particular provision of a statute is directory or mandatory cannot be resolved by laying down any general rule of universal application. Such controversy has to be decided by ascertaining the intention of the legislature and not by looking at the language in which the provision is clothed. And for finding out the legislative intent, the court must examine the scheme of the Act, purpose and object underlying the provision, consequences likely to ensue or inconvenience likely to result if the provision is read one way or the other and many more considerations relevant to the issue.”

21. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 772, the Hon’ble Apex Court, inter alia, held the following: “66. The question is whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention of the legislature must govern, and these are to be ascertained, not only from the phraseology of the provision, but also by considering its nature, its design, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other.”

22. Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, let us now examine the provisions of Section 12[4] of the Panchayat Act, to ascertain whether such provision is mandatory or directory.

23. As soon as a notice of motion is issued to remove a Pradhan, the clock starts ticking, inasmuch as, on the one hand the sword of Damocles starts hanging over the Pradhan, who had been elected democratically and would naturally want to complete his term, and on the other hand, the majority members who lost confidence in the Pradhan for whatever reason, sign a motion in terms of Section 12[2] of the Panchayat Act, expressing their lack of confidence in him and desire to remove him. Therefore, the fate of the Pradhan is to be tested in a meeting which is required to be held upon being convened by the Prescribed Authority. It is needless to mention here that, those members who signed the motion /the requsitionists, having lost confidence in the Pradhan, also started to fervently wait for their desired object of removing the Pradhan, who, according to them, ought to be removed for the better functioning of the gram panchayat, or for any other reason.

24. In these circumstances, the Pradhan will try to prove his majority in order to avoid removal, whereas, the requisitionists will try to prove that the majority wants to remove the Pradhan who, according to them, is unfit to lead the gram panchayat. Therefore, we must be mindful of the fact that the respective substantive rights of the Pradhan and requsitionists under the statute will be affected, if a speedy and proper mechanism is not followed. Here, ‘time’ becomes the most important and decisive factor. The answer to the question as to why ‘time’ is germane, lies in the fact that delay in holding the meeting within the time prescribed by the statute, may give an undue advantage the Pradhan or cause disadvantage requisitionists, depending on the situation. If the meeting is delayed, the endeavour of the Pradhan to regain confidence of the members may be fulfilled with the passage of time. He may have adequate room to solicit their support and lure them to vote for him and support him at the meeting. The requisitionists having majority wanted to carry through the motion. Thus, delay may frustrate their unity. We must, in this connection, keep in mind that once a race has started between two racers, meant to be completed within a fixed time limit, changing the time period afterwards, not only gives an undue advantage to one of the racers, but as a whole, it vitiates the entire race. Moreover, if the motion is brought and the meeting is not held, the working of the gram panchayat comes to a standstill. Without support of the members, no work can be accomplished by the gram panchayat.

25. There is another aspect of the matter. The people (voters) have not been mentioned in these provisions, but their rights are also substantially affected in such circumstances. Those residents, within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Panchayat in respect of which the motion to remove the Pradhan is pending, have a right to have a suitable Pradhan, duly elected under Section 9 of the Panchayat Act by their elected representatives. They have a hope that under the Pradhan’s leadership, the Panchayat will work effectively and within the framework of the Panchayat Act, for betterment of the locality. Once the members lose confidence in the Pradhan, he does not have a right to continue in office. All that remains, is a removal in a meeting usually by raising of hands. The gram panchayat suffers in the midst of creation of rival groups. Thus, the motion has to be tested at the earliest, and positively within the statutory period prescribed in this regard.

26. Moreover, the time frames under Sections 12(2) to 12(4) have to be read harmoniously with Section 12(10). The entire process from receipt of the requisition and up to the removal, must be completed within 30 days from the motion.

27. Therefore, the legislature has fixed the time limit to do certain things within certain time frames and neither the Court nor the Executive is empowered to extend such time, thereby, rewriting the statute. Such a course is not permissible in law. Once the legislature in Section 12[4] of the Panchayat Act has couched the time frame with a negative word, ie, ‘which shall not be later than’ fifteen working days from the date of receipt of the motion by the prescribed authority’, the intention must be declared to be ‘mandatory’ [emphasized by us].

28. In M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramalappa reported in [1961] 2 SCR 295, the Supreme Court held that “negative words are clearly prohibitory and are ordinarily used as a legislative device to make a statute imperative.”

29. In Lachmi Narain v. Union of India reported in AIR 1976 SC 714, the Supreme Court observed that, if a provision is couched in prohibitive or negative language, it can rarely be directory and the use of peremptory language in a negative form is per se indicative of the intent that the provision is to be mandatory.

30. The Supreme Court in its decision in Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal reported in (2003) 2 SCC 577, had the occasion to reiterate that when negative words are used, the Courts will presume that the intention of the legislature was that the provisions are mandatory in character.

31. Therefore, if we look at the aforesaid provisions under the statute, keeping in mind the rights of the Pradhan vis-à-vis the requsitionists, any delay in concluding the meeting would have a cascading effect not only on the opposing groups, but also on the people who elected them with the expectation of better administration. In other words, the purpose and object of Section 12[4] would be defeated and the intention of the legislature would be unfulfilled, if the time for holding the meeting is extended by court, except under the two specific contingencies mentioned in the statute itself.

32. Therefore, in our view, the time limit under Section 12[4] is mandatory, unless one of the two exceptions can be imported to the act of postponement.

33. Now, let us examine the latter provision of Section 12[4] of the Panchayat Act. This provision contains two contingencies, under which the meeting can be either adjourned or cancelled, namely:- “[i] ‘in pursuance of an order or direction of a competent court or [ii] for any other reason beyond control of the prescribed authority’.”

34. The first part of the latter provisions of Section 12[4] does not require any elaborate explanation. The legislature, by this provision, has empowered the Court to adjourn or cancel a meeting in an appropriate case.

35. The second part of the latter provision of Section 12[4] requires examination in order to ascertain under what circumstances and to what extent the Prescribed Authority may adjourn or cancel the meeting citing ‘reason beyond his control’.

36. Therefore, the Prescribed Authority must not exercise his power for an ‘unauthorised purpose’. It means that the exercise of statutory power cannot be for a purpose foreign to that for which it is intended in law. Any action taken by the Prescribed Authority in conscious violation of the law, to the prejudice of another or any depraved inclination to disregard the rights of others, is liable to be set aside. [emphasized by us]

37. Before we proceed further, we must be mindful that passing an order for an ‘unauthorised purpose’ constitutes ‘malice in law’. What is ‘malice in law’ has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437:

25. The State is under obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice— in fact or in law. “Legal malice” or “malice in law” means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill will or spite on the part of the State. It is an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object. It means exercise of statutory power for “purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended”. It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by its injurious acts. (Vide ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant