JUDGMENT
R. Bhattacharyya, J.
1. This order is directed against the order passed by the learned trial Judge dated 17.6.97 in connection with W.P. No. 371 of 1997.
2. The matter could be disposed of by a short order. However, for the ends of justice and the law being involved in the controversy, we think it in our wisdom to give a brief history of the case.
3. The factual exposure may afford to give us the appreciation of the issue involved. The petitioner filed a writ application in the writ forum claiming himself to be the Pradhan of Kolapota Gram Fanchayat, P.O. Kolapata 24 Parganas (North). The Panchayat consisted of 21 members which included amongst other the Pradhan who was elected as Pradhan on the basis of majority of votes. According to the petitioner, the law does not provide under the Panchayat Act to convene or summon a meeting of the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan within one year after they are elected. Since he was elected on 3.4.96, it will not be legitimate to convene a meeting for his removal come what may. The members do not enjoy any power or right overriding section 12 of the Act. it is an asylum for the Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan till the year terminates. They are demanding a latitude expressly barred by the Statute.
4. The action of the members of the Panchayat was not abated as they were bent up to take a resolution for Election of the Pradhan on the aforesaid date. The respondent No. 3 to 12 intimated the Pradhan by a notice that a requisition meeting would be held for removal of the appellant from the post of Pradhan on 21.1.97. The claim of the respondents for adhering steps to the removal of the Pradhan does not stand to be stimulated, since not encouraged by the provisions of the Panchayat Act by which the parties are governed. The action of the respondents are hostile to the provisions of section 9 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act. 1997 as it suffered an amendment by section 12 of the Act. 1973.
5. The respondent No. 6. 8. 10, 11 & 12 however, intimated the petitioner in writing that they were prevailed upon by others to subscribe their signature to the notice dated 13.1.97. But they withdrew their signatures, in connection with the requisition meeting.
6. The prescribed authorities were informed about the action of the respondents 6, 8, 10, II & 12 demanding that the BDO should not respondto the call of removal of the petitioner. The demand of the petitioner to stay away convening the meeting for his removal fell to the deaf ear and the petitioner learnt from the office of the respondent that such a resolution was adopted on 22.1.97 by the respondent No.3 to 13. The action of the respondents does not find any support from any statute who indulged in perpetrating the whimsical and arbitrary act unwarranted by the provisions of law. The learned trial judge when delivered the order on 17.6.97. the appellant petitioner came up before this court to test the viability of the order Impugned.
7. In adumbrating the claim for success, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has laid much stress that removal of the Pradhan after his election for one year is to remain in suspended animation. Section 12 of the Panchayat Act, 1973 is an insurmountable bar for removal of the Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan as the case may be for a period of one year after their election. The second proviso appended to section 12 provides, according to the appellant, that the removal of the Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan cannot be translated into action to cheer the blunt ego of the members of the Gram Panchayat. The Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan is a creature of the statute and when the provision is made, the members of the Gram Panchayat cannot take any resolution after making departure from section 12 of the said Act The entire action has been scorned by statute.
8. The contention has been seriously disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. if we make a harmonious construction of section 12 with other provisions of the statute, it stands out that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner eats into vital of his case. The preface to section 12 begins with, “subject to the other provisions of the sections”. The above expressions do not lean in favour of the petitioner that the members of the Gram Panchayat are precluded from taking any resolution in accordance with law. Section 12 has no independent existence. Nor the second proviso appended to section 12 can be read in isolation of the other provisions of the statute. if one does or makes any attempt to read it in isolation of the proviso of the section 12. it will not only raise a gulf but also will lead to a disharmonious construction between section 12 and other provisions of the Panchayat Act. it will be a pure legal fiction that the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan even commits any act adverse to the welfare of the Panchayat, he is to continue with his ofllce for a period of one year after his Elections. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner may be attractive at the first flush without any lustre behind it. This is one side of the coin. But if we look to the obverse side of the coin, it will be found with accuracy that the boot is on the other leg. According to us, section 12 is to be interpreted not only in line with the preamble of statute but also the aim and object of the act which can be legitimately inferred from the inbuilt structure of the statute. it is the cardinal principle of law that scheme and object of a statute must be sustained than defeated, The statute was brought into existence for promotion of village which should not be read in derogation of the provisions of the statute.
9. Mere so, the preamble is clear that it says, “whereas it is expedient to reorganise Panchayat in rural areas and West Bengal and to provide matters connected therewith”, which permanently show that section 12 hasno independent mooring. if the welfare of the Panchayat is affected by the action of the Upa-Pradhan or Pradhan in course of one year from the date of their Election, it will be illogical to contend that the members of the Gram Panchayat are divested of their right to take any requisition in the meeting for removal of Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan. The right to removal cannot be snapped of by the term of office as laid down in section 12. if we interpret section 12 in the way as interpreted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be a confusion worse confounded. The Panchayat is a rolling stone that gathers no moss. it will be on a clean slate which must not be lashed by the term of office as the Panchayat strives for the welfare of the village where the term of one year is not in tune with the statute.
10. In the perspective of the above, the writ application does not merit any consideration and we do not find any reason to interfere with the order Impugned. Accordingly, both the appeal and stay stand disposed of by our order.
11. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of the judgment/order upon usual undertaking.
N. A. Chowdhury, J.
12. I agree.
13. Appeal disposed of
