JUDGMENT
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.
1. Fifteen members of the Debipur Gram Panchayat out of twenty-one members, by their notice dated 22nd February, 2006 requested the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat to convene a meeting for transacting an agenda for removal of the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat.
2. In spite of best efforts, the said notice could not be served upon the Pradhan directly though repeated attempts were made to serve the said notice upon the Pradhan by registered post. Ultimately the said notice was served upon the office of the Gram Panchayat on 23rd February, 2006.
3. Since no meeting was convened by the Pradhan for the aforesaid purpose, the requisitionists themselves, by their notice dated 13th March, 2006, called a meeting to be held at the office of the Gram Panchayat on 21st March, 2006 for the said purpose.
4. The Pradhan was intimated about the said meeting by notice dated 13th March, 2006 issued by the requisitionists which was admittedly received by the Pradhan on 15th March, 2006.
5. A meeting, in fact, was held on 21st March, 2006 as per schedule, in the presence of observer deputed by the prescribed authority and in the said meeting a resolution was adopted by fifteen members out of twenty-one for removal of the Pradhan.
6. The said resolution together with the other relevant documents were subsequently forwarded to the prescribed authority, who on receipt of the report of the said observer passed an order on 29th May, 2006 by removing the said Pradhan with immediate effect.
7. Subsequently, on the 7th July, 2006 the prescribed authority recalled the said order of the removal of the Pradhan on the basis of an opinion given by the Government Pleader of the district.
8. The said order passed by the prescribed authority on 7th June, 2006 was challenged by the said fifteen requisitionists by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 8599(W) of 2006 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 11th July, 2006 with a direction upon the prescribed authority to take an ultimate decision on the resolution of the majority members regarding removal of Pradhan after taking into consideration the allegation of the Pradhan regarding non service of notice dated 22nd February, 2006 upon him as complained of in his complaint dated 15th March, 2006 submitted before the prescribed authority.
9. The prescribed authority was also directed to consider the effect of service of notice upon the Executive Assistant on 23rd February, 2006 in the light of the notification dated 14th September, 2002 which was relied upon by the petitioner in support of his claim that the service upon the office of the Gram Panchayat amounts to the service upon the Pradhan.
10. The entire dispute now boils down to a single issue regarding the effect of service of notice dated 22nd February, 2006 upon the Executive Assistant of the said Gram Panchayat. If it is ultimately held that such service amounts to service upon the Pradhan then the plea of non-service of notice taken by the Pradhan will be completely demolished. If on the other hand it is held that such service does not amount to service upon the Pradhan then the plea of non-service of such notice taken by the Pradhan will be proved.
11. Thus, the entire dispute is required to be resolved with reference to the notification dated 14th September, 2005. The said notification, however, was not taken into consideration by the prescribed authority though he was directed by this Court to consider the effect to the said notification at the time of taking the ultimate decision on the resolution of removal of the Pradhan.
12. Since the said notification has a great impact on the dispute at issue, let me set out the relevant parts of the said notification hereunder:
(i) the statutory period of fifteen days or thirty-five days (in case of holding requisitioned meeting on notice issued by the requisitionists members) shall be counted from the date of receipt of the notice by the Pradhan. The provision is not relaxable even if there is an occasion that any particular Pradhan has tried to avoid receipt of the notice. Since, however, receipt by the Pradhan himself also includes receipt by the office of the Pradhan, i.e. Gram Panchayat Office, requisitionists members are free to send one copy of the notice to the Pradhan at the address of the Pradhan and another to him by name. Any of the letters served may be treated as valid service, if the letter is served by the registered post and the postal authority returns the letter with this remark, ‘refused’ it will be treated as service on the date when the remark is record:
(ii) …
(iii) If the notice of the requisitionists members – (i) requiring the Pradhan to hold the meeting and (ii) convening the meeting to be held within 35 days – is found to be bad in law and hence void, the meeting has been convened unlawfully and so in legal concept no meeting has been convened. In such event, the requisitionist members are at liberty to start the process de novo by requiring the Pradhan to hold such meeting. Third proviso of Section 12 ibid is not attracted in this situation.
13. Para one of the said notification makes it clear that receipt by the Pradhan himself also includes receipt by the office of the Pradhan. As such, the service of the notice addressed to Pradhan which was received by the Executive Assistant of the Gram Panchayat, in my view, amounts to service upon the Pradhan.
14. Section 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 provides that the Pradhan, when required in writing by one third of the members of the Gram Panchayat subject to a minimum of three members to call a meeting, shall do so fixing the date and hour of the meeting to be held within fifteen days, after giving intimation to the prescribed authority and seven days’ notice to the members of the Gram Panchayat failing which the members aforesaid may call a meeting to be held within thirty-five days after giving intimation to the prescribed authority and seven clear days’ notice to the Pradhan and other members of the Gram Panchayat.
15. Section 16 of the said Act does not mention any specific mode for service of such notice upon the Pradhan. The West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 1981 also does not specify any specific mode for service of such notice upon the Pradhan. Since the Pradhan whose removal is at issue, may avoid service of notice upon him with an intention to avoid facing such a meeting, the said notification dated 14th September, 2000 was issued notifying that receipt by the Pradhan himself also includes receipt by the office of the Pradhan, i.e. Gram Panchayat Office.
16. On consideration of the said Notification, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the notice dated 22nd February, 2006 which was received by the Executive Assistant amounts to service upon Pradhan.
17. Admittedly, Pradhan did not convene any meeting pursuant to the said notice. As such, the requisitionists called the said meeting vide the notice dated 13th March, 2006 which was admittedly received by the Pradhan on 15th March, 2006.
18. The meeting, in fact, was held on the said date and a resolution for removal was adopted by fifteen members out of twenty-one in the presence of the observer deputed by the prescribed authority.
19. Thus, it is crystal clear that the majority members have lost their confidence in Pradhan. Since the respondent No. 11 was elected as the Pradhan in a democratic process, he should accept the decision of his removal which was also taken by the majority members in a democratic process. The very foundation of democracy will collapse if the majority decision is not accepted spontaneously by the minority group.
20. On overall assessment of the circumstances, this Court holds that there is no irregularity in the process of removal of the Pradhan. The Pradhan has been removed by the majority members two following the rules prescribed therefor.
21. The reason for the absence of the Pradhan at the time when service of such notice was sought to be effected upon him by the requisitionists is not a material consideration here, as the service was, in fact, effected upon the Executive Assistant of the Gram Panchayat.
22. As such, the impugned order passed by the prescribed authority stands quashed.
23. The writ petition, thus, stands allowed by approving the legality of the resolution adopted by the majority members for removal of the said Pradhan.
24. The Pradhan is, thus, directed to hand over the charge of his office to the Upa-Pradhan forthwith, if such charge had not already been handed over to the Upa-Pradhan. The concerned authority is, thus, directed to take immediate steps for the election of the Pradhan, without any delay.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible.