Samar Mondal & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

This court in the matter Sourendra Nath Das v. The State of West Bengal & ors. (WPA 11903 of 2021) held as follows: “Having considered the submissions made by the petitioner and the learned advocates for the prescribed authority, this court is of the opinion that a reading of the requisition notice (which is in bengali), as a whole, would indicate that in the opinion of the members, the pradhan has proved to be incompetent as he did not perform his duties and developmental works, causing deprivation to the people of the locality from the benefits all governmental projects, and thus the members had lost confidence in their leader and wanted his removal. reflection of his The effect of such a requisition is that the pradhan being incompetent to perform his duties had caused suffering to the people and would be consequently removed as members lost confidence on account of such non-performance.

The pradhan has a career. If the requisition is allowed to stand, it would be a inability and incompetence in performing his duties as a leader of the gram panchayat. This is the ‘no foundation of confidence’ is based on the allegation of incompetence and inability of the pradhan and the suffering caused to the people in the locality due to such incompetence. This is not a simple requisition for removal of the pradhan. The removal if carried through in the meeting will carry a stigma that the pradhan was removed as he failed to perform his duties and developmental works. requisition. The In my opinion, the decision of Ujjal Mondal (supra) applies. Even if the allegations are not as serious as misappropriation or misconduct, incapacity or incompetence of a 3 political leader to perform works in the locality which has cause disillusionment, unhappiness and suffering to the people in the locality are allegations which can be viewed with seriousness.

The future prospects of the pradhan might be jeopardized. He will also not get a chance to explain his conduct. Thus, the requisition notice and subsequent notice are set aside for the reasons stated hereinabove.” Under such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioners for implementation of the requisitions by directing the prescribed authority to call for a meeting for removal of the concerned pradhan, cannot be allowed. The requisitions which have been annexed to the writ petition being annexures P-1 to P-4 are set aside and cancelled. However, the court is conscious of the rights of the requisitionists. In my opinion, the provision for removing an elected representative such as the pradhan is of fundamental importance to ensure the democratic functioning of the institution as well as to ensure 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 Pradhan 4 has lost support of the majority of the members, she cannot remain in office for a single day. The requisitionists are granted liberty to bring a fresh requisition as per Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. If such requisition is brought, the prescribed authority shall act and proceed in terms of the provisions of Sections 12(3) and 12(4) onwards, of the said Act and reach the requisition to its logical conclusion within the time limit prescribed by the statute. The bar under Section 12(11) of the said Act shall not be applicable. It is further made clear that the prescribed authority shall be entitled to seek police protection and if such request is made, the police authority shall render all support to the requisitionists as also to the prescribed authority without any delay and laches.