Disposed¶13

Sk Ashik Ikbal v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC24 Mar 2026MAT/446/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

No-confidence motion; notice of motion; stigma allegation in notice; voting by ballot; infringement of reputation of political person; 30-day outer limit expiry; prescribed authority took no steps; motion infructuous; meeting not held; Khanakul-I Panchayat Samity; Karmadhyaksha of Purtya Karya-O-Paribahan Sthayee Samiti; WPA 2536 of 2026; MAT 446 of 2026; CAN 1 of 2026; appeal disposed of; writ petition disposed of; no interim order; affidavits directed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of with observations; writ petition and connected application CAN 1 of 2026 also disposed of; liberty preserved for members to bring a fresh motion strictly in accordance with law (paras 13, 15, 16, 17). ¶13

Sk Ashik Ikbal Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice of motion brought by respondent nos. 8 to 10 was stigmatic, such that the no-confidence meeting could not be held on the basis of that notice. +2 more

¶6

Court's answer

The Court expressly declined to decide the issue of stigma attaching to the notice, as the Motion had become infructuous.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The notice of motion has expired, as no steps were taken by the prescribed authority under the provisions of law to bring the no-confidence process to its logical conclusion.

¶11

Key takeaways

Disposal of the appeal will not preclude the members of the samiti from bringing a further no-confidence motion on the self-same issue, strictly in accordance with law.obiter¶15
Nothing further remained to be decided in the writ petition, which was disposed of along with the disposal of the appeal.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court, Appellate Side (MAT 446 of 2026, with CAN 1 of 2026, decided 24.03.2026; Shampa Sarkar and Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ.). Appeal against the order dated February 24, 2026 in WPA 2536 of 2026, whereby affidavits were directed to be filed without any interim order, in proceedings arising from a notice of motion by respondent nos. 8 to 10 for a no-confidence motion against the appellant, a member of Khanakul-I Panchayat Samity and Karmadhyakshya of Purtya Karya-O-Paribahan Sthayee Samiti. The State submitted, and the Court found, that the 30-day outer limit had expired and the meeting was never held: the notice had expired as the prescribed authority took no steps under the provisions of law. The Court declined to adjudicate the appellant's 'stigma' objection since the Motion had become infructuous, disposed of the appeal, the writ petition and CAN 1 of 2026, while making clear that its disposal would not preclude the members of the samiti from bringing a further motion on the self-same issue strictly in accordance with law.

¶1

24.03.2026 Item No.18 Court No.12 CP

¶2

MAT 446 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 Sk. Ashik Ikbal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶3

Mr. Pratip Kumar Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Gautam Banerjee Mr. Raja Ghosh Ms. Maitrayee Chatterjee …..for the Appellant. Mr. Bibek Jyoti Basu Mr. Sayan Ganguly .....for the State. Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ratikanta Pal

¶4

.....for the respondent nos. 8 to 10.

¶5

The appellant is the member of the Khanakul-I Panchayat Samity and the Karmadhyakshya of Purtya Karya-O-Paribahan Sthayee Samiti. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated February 24, 2026, passed in WPA 2536 of 2026. His Lordship directed affidavits to be filed, without passing any interim order.

¶6

According to the appellant, the notice of motion brought by the respondent nos. 8 to 10 was stigmatic and the meeting pursuant to a no confidence motion against the appellant could not be held on the basis of the said notice. He refers to various decisions of this

¶7

¶8

court in order to contend that, a vote of no confidence is passed by ballots. The consequence thereof would be a reflection that the appellant had lost support of the majority. However, if the voting is permitted on the basis of a notice which contains allegations against the appellant, the said allegations become a part of the records and will operate as a stigma. This will have a negative impact on the reputation of the appellant who is a political person and is serving the society.

¶9

Mr. Pal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 8 to 10, submits that the meeting has not been held.

¶10

Mr. Basu, learned advocate for the State, submits that the notice has become infructuous as the outer limit of 30 days to complete the entire process had expired, but the meeting was not held.

¶11

We find from the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and the records that the notice has expired as no steps were taken by the prescribed authority under the provisions of law, in order to reach the same to its logical conclusion.

¶12

We are not inclined to decide on the issue of stigma as the Motion has become infructuous.

¶13

Under such circumstances, this appeal is disposed of with the above observations. However, we make it clear that disposal of this appeal will not preclude the members of the samiti to bring a further

¶14

¶15

Motion, on the self same issue, strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

We also appreciate the submissions made by Mr. Basu that nothing further remains to be decided in the writ petition and, accordingly, the writ petition is also disposed of with the disposal of the appeal.

¶17

The connected application being CAN 1 of 2026 is also disposed of.

¶18

Parties are directed to act on the basis of the

¶19

server copy of this order.

¶20

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

¶21

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

Sk Ashik Ikbal v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk Ashik Ikbal v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager Axis Bank Ltd. Vs Khatu Shyam Trading Co. and Ors.

Alishan Panels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

R.S.P. Green Development and Laboratories Private Limited Vs Arindam Basu and Ors.

Tapan Pradhan Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

India Power Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs Bst Infratech Limited and Anr.

Saddam Hossain Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.