JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioners have challenged a notice dated 25th January, 1994 issued by some of the members of Hamirhati Gram Panchayat, District Bankura, giving notice that a meeting of the Gram Panchayat would be held on 4th February, 1994 for the purpose of ascertaining confidence of the members against the Prodhan as also the Upa-Prodhan. It appears that when the matter was initially moved on 21st February, 1994, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo as regards possession for a period of two days and thereafter, the interim order was directed to continue till 25th February, 1994. In the meantime, it appears that pursuant to the resolution adopted at the meeting on 4th February, 1994 the Prodhan and Upa-Prodhan were sought to be removed from their respective offices and the charge of the office of the Prodhan was assumed by Smt. Chhanda Konar, respondent No. 11 herein.
2. Pursuant to the above, an application for further interim orders was filed on behalf of the petitioners and the parties were restrained from holding any meeting in respect of the election of the Prodhan.
3. The writ application is being taken up for hearing at this stage.
4. Appearing in support of the writ petition Mr. Q.E. Kabir, learned Advocate, submitted that the notice of the meeting to be held on 4th February, 1994, was itself bad since Sections 12 and 16 did not contemplate removal and/or ascertaining loss of confidence of both Proddhan and UpaProdhan in one meeting. Mr. Kabir further submitted that the agenda in the impugned notice clearly mention that the meeting was to be held for the purpose of ascertaining the confidence of the members and not for their removal and, accordingly, the resolution said to have been adopted at the meeting on 4th February, 1994, removing both the Prodhan and Upa-Prodhan was bad.
In support of his contention Mr. Kabir referred to a well-known decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Soleman Shah and Ors. v. Director of Panchayat, Burdwan and Ors. reported in 70 CWN page 1088, wherein His Lordship was pleased to observe that removal and loss of confidence were two different concepts and that it would be dangerous to equate loss of confidence or lack of confidence with removal. Mr. Kabir also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Royhan and Ors. v. Chamatkar Maltiya and Ors. reported in 89 CWN page 1044. The Division Bench observed that the decision of Soleman Shah’s case (supra) was good law on the subject.
5. Mr. Kabir submitted that having regard to the above since notice of the requisition meeting was itself invalid in the eye of law, any resolution taken at the said meeting and any steps taken on the basis of such resolution must also be held to be void and invalid.
6. Appearing on behalf of the private respondents, who are some of the other members of the Gram Panchayat, Mr. Chitta Ranjan Bag, learned Advocate, submitted that the notice could not be said to be invalid merely because the word removal had not been mentioned therein, since removal followed as a consequence of loss of confidnce. Mr. Bag submitted that in any event, since the Prodhan and the Upa-Prodhan had already been removed and charge had been assumed in respect of the post of Prodhan by Smt. Chhanda Konar, the writ application had been rendered infructuous and no relief could be given to the petitioners herein.
7. Mr. Bag relied on a portion of paragraph 10 of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Royhan and Ors. (supra) wherein their Lordships observed that since the Prodhan had already been removed, the casual vacancy could be filled in under the provisions of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules 1975. In this regard, Mr. Bag referred to Rule 6(1) of the above Rules.
8. Appearing for the State and the State Respondents Mr. Apurba Lal Basu, learned Advocate, submitted in the same vein as Mr. Bag regarding the agenda mentioned in the impugned notice.
9. I am afraid that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Soleman Shah (supra) which was approved by the Division Bench in the case of Royhan and Ors. (supra), I am unable to accept the submissions made by Mr. Bag regarding non-inclusion of the factum of removal in the agenda of the requisition meeting held on 4th February 1994.
10. Apart from the above, I am of the view that Sections 12 and 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, do not contemplate removal of the Prodhan and the Upa-Prodhan in one meeting and two separate meetings are required to be held for the said purpose upon two separate notices having been given in support thereof.
11. Having regard to the above, this writ application must succeed and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned notice for holding the requisition meeting, being annexure ‘B’ to the writ petition, is hereby quashed along with the resolution adopted therein.
12. Needless to say, any steps taken pursuant to such resolution must also stand quashed.
13. The prescribed authority is directed to see that the petitioner No. 1 is restored to the post of Prodhan and the petitioner No. 2 is restored to the post of Upa-Prodhan and the charge of the office is made over to them forthwith. This will not, however, prevent the members: of the Gram Panchayat from taking further steps for removal of the Prodhan and the Upa-Prodhan in accordance with law.
13. The writ application, along with the application for further interim orders, is thus disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
14. Let xerox copies of this order be given to the learned Advocates for the respective parties on the usual undertaking.