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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned notice dated 8th June, 2026 quashed/set aside; Prescribed Authority directed to convene the meeting within 10 days from communication of the order and conclude the no-confidence proceedings within the Section 12 timeframe, treating the date of communication of the order as the date of submission of the no-confidence motion; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority/Block Development Officer, Suti II on 8th June, 2026 convening the meeting on 16th June, 2026 complied with the mandatory clear 7 days' notice requirement under Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.

Court's answer

The notice issued by the Prescribed Authority on 8th June, 2026 fell short of the mandatory clear 7 days' notice required by Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, was bad in law, and was accordingly quashed/set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The private respondents who floated the no-confidence motion cannot suffer for the fault of the Prescribed Authority; the Prescribed Authority was directed to convene the meeting within 10 days from communication of the order and take the proceeding to its logical conclusion within the time frame under Section 12 of the Act, the date of communication of the order being treated as the date of submission of the no-confidence motion.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Panchayat no-confidence motion — defective notice — quashed. Rabikul Islam, Pradhan of Umrapur Gram Panchayat, challenged the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority and Block Development Officer, Suti II on 8th June, 2026 fixing the no-confidence meeting for 16th June, 2026. The track report showed the notice was despatched only on 9th June, 2026, falling short of the clear 7 days' notice mandated by Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. Holding the notice bad in law, the Court quashed/set it aside. However, since the private respondents had already floated the no-confidence motion and could not suffer for the Prescribed Authority's fault, the Authority was directed to convene the meeting within 10 days from communication of the order and conclude the proceeding within the Section 12 timeframe, the date of communication being deemed the date of submission of the motion. Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

28

jdt. 03.07.2026 jb.

WPA 12525 of 2026

(Rabikul Islam vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.)

Mr. Sunil Kr. Gupta Mr. Rishav Barman

…. For the Petitioner Ms. Aishwrya Rajyashree Ms. Puja Sonkar

…. For the State Samim Ahmed Ms. Saloni Bhattacharya Md. Nasirul Haque

…. For the Respondent nos. 6 to 18

Learned advocate on record appearing on behalf of the

6^th respondent seeks liberty to file vakalatnama in the department by today.

Such liberty is granted.

The petitioner/Pradhan of Umrapur Gram Panchayat assails the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority and Block Development Officer, Suti II on 8^th June, 2026 fixing the date of meeting on 16^th June, 2026 on the ground that notice falls short of the mandate laid down under Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.

It appears from the track report produced by the petitioner that the notice was sent on 9^th June, 2026 fixing the date of meeting on 16^th June, 2026. The notice, therefore, falls short of the mandatory time frame laid down under Section 12(3) of the Act which requires clear 7 days’ notice to be issued upon the members.

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority on 8^th June, 2026 is bad in law and is required to be quashed.

2

The notice is accordingly quashed/set aside.

However, since the private respondents have floated no confidence motion against the Pradhan/petitioner before the Prescribed Authority seeking his removal, they cannot suffer for fault on the part of the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority is directed to convene the meeting within 10 days from the date of communication of this order and take the proceeding to its logical conclusion within the time frame laid down under Section 12 of the Act. Since the stipulated time frame has already expired, the date of communication of this order shall be treated as the date of submission of the no confidence motion before the Prescribed Authority.

The writ petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

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

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