Disposed¶14

Samiul Sk and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC1 Jul 2026WPA/12172/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

no confidence motion; Pradhan; Gram Panchayat; Prescribed Authority; Section 12; West Bengal Panchayat Act 1973; time frame expired; requisitionists; BDO Kaliachak III; Bedrabad; police assistance; peaceful meeting; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued: (i) the Prescribed Authority and the BDO, Kaliachak III to treat the date of communication of the order as the date of submission of the no confidence motion and conclude the proceeding within the Section 12 time frame; (ii) the Inspector in Charge, Baishnabnagar Police Station to render assistance for the meeting to be held peacefully. No order as to costs. ¶14

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the no confidence motion moved by the petitioners/requisitionists against the Pradhan must be proceeded with notwithstanding expiry of the time frame under Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 caused by the Prescribed Authority's failure to act.

¶9

Court's answer

The petitioners/requisitionists cannot suffer due to negligence on the part of the Prescribed Authority in dealing with the no confidence motion in accordance with law.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The Prescribed Authority and the Block Development Officer, Kaliachak III (3rd respondent) are directed to treat the date of communication of the order as the date of submission of the no confidence motion and take the proceeding to its logical conclusion within the time frame laid down under Section 12 of the Act of 1973.

¶12

Key takeaways

The Inspector in Charge, Baishnabnagar Police Station (6th respondent) is directed to render necessary assistance to the third respondent so that the meeting called by the 3rd respondent is held peacefully and without any disturbance.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Members of Bedrabad Gram Panchayat moved a no confidence motion against the Pradhan (respondent no. 9) before the Prescribed Authority on 18.05.2026, which was received the same day, but no step was taken within the time frame prescribed by Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. Holding that the petitioners/requisitionists cannot suffer due to the negligence of the Prescribed Authority, the Court directed the Prescribed Authority and the Block Development Officer, Kaliachak III to treat the date of communication of the order as the date of submission of the no confidence motion and to take the proceeding to its logical conclusion within the time frame under Section 12. The Inspector in Charge, Baishnabnagar Police Station was directed to render assistance so that the meeting is held peacefully. Writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs; allegations deemed not admitted since no affidavit invited.

¶1

34 jdt. 01.07.2026 jb.

¶2

WPA 12172 of 2026 (Samiul Sk. & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.)

¶3

Mr. Joy Chakraborty Ms. Ipsita Ghosh Mr. Soumik Ganguly …. For the Petitioners Mr. Ajit Kr. Mishra Mr. Madhu Jana Mr. Rahul Agarwala Ms. Puja Sonkar

¶4

…. For the State

¶5

On prayer of the petitioners liberty is granted to expunge the names of respondent nos. 10 to 15 from the cause title of the application.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners are taken on record.

¶7

The private respondents are not represented despite service.

¶8

The petitioners are members of Bedrabad Gram Panchayat and moved a no confidence motion against the Pradhan of the Panchayat, being the 9^th respondent herein, before the Prescribed Authority on 18^th May, 2026 which was received by the latter on the same date. The petitioners submit that no step has been taken by the Prescribed Authority in this regard in terms of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.

¶9

It appears that the no confidence motion was received by the Prescribed Authority on 18^th May, 2026. The time frame prescribed in Section 12 of the Act of 1973 has already expired. However, the petitioners/requisitionists cannot suffer due to negligence on the part of the Prescribed

¶10

¶11

Authority to deal with the no confidence motion, in accordance with law.

¶12

In view of the above, the Prescribed Authority and the Block Development Officer, Kaliachak III, being the 3^rd respondent herein, is directed to treat the date of communication of this order as the date of submission of the no confidence motion and take the proceeding to its logical conclusion in terms of the time frame laid down under Section 12 of the Act of 1973.

¶13

The Inspector in Charge, Baishnabnagar Police Station, being the 6^th respondent herein, is directed to render necessary assistance to the third respondent so that the meeting called by the 3^rd respondent is held peacefully and without any disturbance from any corner whatsoever.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted.

¶17

Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities.

¶18

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Samiul Sk and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samiul Sk and Ors. v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashadul Sekh @ Sk. Ashadul Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ram Kumar Naskar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Md. Najimuddin Sk Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

MD Haider Ali and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Wasim Akram Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rosena and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.