Rustam v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

and the Hon’ble Court while dismissing the writ petition has observed that the petitioner cannot compel the Pradhan to execute a fresh contract. However, if this Court directs, the Pradhan will consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that the engagement of a Tax Collector is made by the Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat as per Section 35A of the West Bengal Panchayat Act. Referring to Rule 31 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Accounts, Audit and Budget) Rules, 2007, he submits that a Tax Collector cannot claim renewal or extension of its contract as a matter of right. However, while refusing renewal or extension of the contract, the Gram Panchayat shall inform the incumbent in writing before termination of his contract. He also indicates that as per Clause 5 of Rule 31, if the incumbent is not satisfied with the decision of Gram Panchayat under Sub-rule 4, he may 4 prefer an appeal before the Block Development Officer. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat is to consider the application for renewal of the petitioner. This is second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition being No.16794 of 2024 which was dismissed with the following direction:- “However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a fresh application for renewal and/or execution of a fresh contract before the Prodhan and if any such application is submitted, the Prodhan may consider it at its discretion but the condition precedent for submission of such application, the petitioner shall made over all records and documents to the Panchayat to the satisfaction of the Prodhan. This order shall not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner, if the petitioner submits any further application.” Pursuant to such order, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of his engagement on 29th July,

#2024. The said application has not been considered as yet. While dismissing the earlier writ petition, the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench has also observed that whether to execute a fresh contact in the facts of the case is the discretion lies with the Panchayat and the petitioner cannot compel the Panchayat to execute a further contract. Be that as it may, the Pradhan was also directed to consider the application of the petitioner at its discretion. It is relevant to note that submission of application for renewal by the petitioner was subjected to condition that the petitioner shall make over all records and documents to the Panchayat to the satisfaction of the Pradhan. It is informed by the learned advocate for the respective parties that all records and 5 documents have been made over to the Panchayat upon satisfaction of the Pradhan. Bearing in mind the previous order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in earlier writ petition, the Prodhan, Swarupganj Gram Panchayat, respondent no.5 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal dated 29th July, 2024 at its discretion within a period of six weeks from date of communication of this order. Learned Advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order along with a copy of the application dated 29th July, 2024 to the respondent no.5, Pradhan, Swarupganj Gram Panchayat. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition being WPA 23242 of 2024 stands disposed of. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)