MASUD SK vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

WPA 1643 of 2026

Masud Sk.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.


For the petitioners : Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee
Mr. Manas Das
Ms. Suchismita Chakraborty
Mr. Debarnab Adhikary

For the State : Mr. Sukanta Ghosh
Mr. Argha Chatterjee


Heard on : 23.06.2026.

Judgment on : 23.06.2026.

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):
nd
1. Perused the report of the Learned Registrar General dated 22
June 2026. From the aforesaid report it would transpire that in
th
terms of the order dated 16 June 2026 the said order was duly
communicated both to the respondent no. 3 as also to the
respondent no. 6. In terms of the aforesaid order an affidavit has
nd
been filed by the respondent no. 3 affirmed on 22 June 2026
explaining the circumstances under which he could not comply
th
with the directions passed by this Court on 14 May 2026.

2
WPA 1643 of 2026
2. The respondent no. 6 has also filed an affidavit, explaining his
conduct in failing to adhere to the direction passed by this Court.
He is also personally present in Court. The affidavit and the
explanation offered by the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no.
3 shall be dealt with in the latter part of the order.
3. The writ petition was filed citing extreme urgency as according to
the petitioner, notice of meeting for filing up the post of Pradhan at
Rajnagar Gram Panchayat, Malda which had been scheduled at
th
12.00 noon on 28 January 2026 was served on the petitioner only
st
on 21 January 2026.
4. The petitioner claims to be an elected member of Rajnagar Gram
Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the “said Panchayat”). It is the
petitioner’s case that the respondent No. 8 was the Pradhan of the
th
said panchayat who was removed vide order dated 25 August,
2025 passed by the prescribed authority and development officer,
Kaliachak-II, Malda. According to the petitioner once, the post of
Pradhan fell vacant in terms of Rule 6(1) of the West Bengal
Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the
“said Rules”), the prescribed authority referred to in Sub Rule (1) of
Rule 3, is obliged to call a meeting of the members eligible to
participate under Rule 3 of the said Rules, for the election of a
Pradhan by fixing a date, place and time and causing a written
notice to this effect in Form-1, to be served on each member at least
7 days before the date fixed for such meeting. By drawing

3
WPA 1643 of 2026
attention of this Court to the statement made in paragraph 6 of the
writ petition, it is submitted that though the notice in Form-1 is
th
dated 19 January, 2026, the same has been served on the family
st
member of the petitioner only on 21 January, 2026 and
accordingly 7 days’ clear notice in terms of Rule 3(1) having not
th
been given, the meeting that is scheduled on 28 January 2026
being illegal, cannot be continued and should be stalled.
5. Independent of the above, it is submitted that though the position
th
of the Pradhan fell vacant on 25 August, 2025, no steps were
taken by the prescribed authority within the ordinary period
provided in Rule 6(1) of the said Rules. The notice in Form-1 does
not disclose whether the above notice has been issued with the
concurrence of the District Panchayat Election Officer and as such
the aforesaid fixing of date of meeting for the holding of election of
the Pradhan is nonest and bad.
6. This Court upon hearing the parties and upon noting that the
petitioner having questioned the holding of the meeting without the
concurrence of the District Panchayat Election Officer and since
Form 1 does not reflect that any concurrence of the District
Panchayat Election Officer had been obtained before fixing a date
of the meeting and since, admittedly the position of the Pradhan
th
had fallen vacant on 25 August, 2025, and more than 30 days
having lapsed after the order of removal, was of the view that the
matter requires to be heard. On such ground, the writ petition was

4
WPA 1643 of 2026
th
entertained vide order dated 28 January 2026 and the State
authorities were directed to produce the records when the matter is
taken up next. It was further ordered that the results to be
declared by the prescribed authority/election officer in respect of
meeting for electing a Pradhan shall abide by the results of the writ
petition.
7. The matter was subsequently assigned before this Court by order
th
dated 13 April 2026. When this matter was taken up for
th
consideration on 28 April 2026, an accommodation was sought for
on behalf of the Learned Additional Government Pleader and
th
accordingly, the matter was adjourned. On 11 May 2026, neither
was the State represented nor were the records produced despite
th
specific direction passed by this Court on 28 January 2026. In
such circumstances, this Court directed the respondent no. 6 to
produce the records when the matter is taken up next. The
petitioner was directed to communicate the order to the office of the
Learned Legal Remembrancer.
8. In terms of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner caused the above
order to be served on the Office of the Learned Legal Remembrancer
th
and in support thereof, has placed the communication dated 13
May 2026 for consideration which has been taken on record. On the
th
returnable date, that is on 14 May 2026, despite the aforesaid
direction, neither the Sate appeared nor the respondent no. 6 was
present along with the records. Accordingly, this Court, to

5
WPA 1643 of 2026
accommodate the State and the respondent no. 6, directed the
th
matter to be listed on 16 June 2026 when the respondent no. 6
was directed to be personally present before this Court. The
respondent no. 3 was also directed to ensure compliance of the
order. Notwithstanding such direction, the respondent no. 6 was
not present in Court. The records were also not produced. The
respondent no. 3 also did not adhere to the direction passed by this
Court. On such date, though the State was represented, however,
considering the conduct of the respondent nos. 3 and 6 in failing to
adhere to the directions despite orders passed by this Court, this
Court directed the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 6 to file
individual affidavits explaining their conduct with a further
direction that the respondent no. 6 must appear before this Court
rd
today (23 June 2026) at 10.30 A.M. In terms of the above
direction, the Learned Registrar General has caused the order to be
served both on the respondent nos. 3 and 6. A report in this regard
has been filed.
9. The State is represented and has produced the records.
10. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, the question that falls for consideration as regards merits of
the case is whether there has been adherence of Rules 3(1) and 6(1)
of the said Rules. To morefully appreciate the same, Rule 3(1) of the
said Rules is extracted hereinbelow:
3(1) As soon as may be after the constitution of Gram
Panchayat is notified in the Official Gazette under sub-section

6
WPA 1643 of 2026
(4) of section 4, but not later than twenty-one days from the
date of publication of the notification or within such further time
as may be allowed by the District Panchayat Election Officer
for reasons to be recorded by him in this behalf, the prescribed
authority appointed for the purpose of sub-section (2) of section
9 shall call a meeting of all the members [referred to in clause
(i) of sub-section (2A) of section 4] of such Gram Panchayat for
the taking of oath and for the election of a Pradhan and Upa-
Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, by fixing a date, place and
time and causing a written notice to this effect in Form 1 to be
[served on each of the members referred to in clause (i) of sub-
section (2A) of section 4] of the Gram Panchayat at least seven]
days before the date fixed for the meeting


11. As would appear from the above in terms of Rule 3(1), the Block
Development Officer who is the prescribed authority as referred to
in Rule 3(1) of the said Rules is obliged to call for a meeting of all
the members for the election of a Pradhan at a fixed date, place and
time and cause a written notice to this effect in Form – 1 to be
served on each member at least 7 days before the date fixed for
such meeting.
12. From the materials available on record it transpires that the
st
notice was served on the petitioner on 21 January 2026 at 9.46
A.M. The aforesaid clearly indicates that the service of notice for
holding the meeting was not as per the statute as 7 days clear
notice in terms of Rule 3(1) has not been given.

13. There is another aspect of the matter. Since, in this case,
th
admittedly the position of the Pradhan has fallen vacant on 25
August 2025, the prescribed authority was obliged to call for a
meeting as soon as but not later than thirty days from the date of

7
WPA 1643 of 2026
any casual vacancy in the office of Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan,
Sabhapati or Sahakari Sabhapati or Sabhadhipati or Sahakari
Sabhadhipati by reason of death, resignation, removal or otherwise
having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 6(1). In this
context, Rule 6(1) of the said Rules in extracted hereinbelow:-
6(1) As soon as may be but not later than thirty days from
the date of any casual vacancy in the office of Pradhan or
Upa-Pradhan, Sabhapati or Sahakari Sabhapati or
Sabhadhipati or Sahakari Sabhadhipati by reason of death,
resignation, removal or otherwise, or within such further lime
as may be allowed by the District Panchayat Election Officer
for reasons to be recorded by him in this behalf of the
prescribed authority referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 3, sub-
rule (1) of rule 4, sub rule (1) of rule 5, or sub-rule (1) of rule
5A] shall call a meeting of all the members [eligible to
participate under rule 3, rule 4, rule 5 or rule 5A, as may be
appropriate] for the election of a Pradhan or an Upa-Pradhan,
a Sabhapati or a Sahakari Sabhapati, a Sabhadhipati or a
Sahakari Sabhadhipati, as the case may be, by fixing a dale,
place and time and causing a written notice to this effect in
Form 1 [to be served on each such member] at least [seven]
days before the date fixed for such meeting”

14. Having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 6(1) of the said
Rules, the prescribed authority can only call a meeting within thirty
days from the date of arising of the vacancy in the office of the
Pradhan. For holding any meeting beyond such date, he requires
the concurrence of the District Panchayat Election Officer as the
language in Rule 6(1) of the said Rules clearly indicates that the
time period for holding the meeting is not later than thirty days
from the date of any vacancy in the post of Pradhan or within such

8
WPA 1643 of 2026
further time as may be allowed by the District Panchayat Election
Officer.
15. The position has now become clear as has been acknowledged by
the respondent no. 6 appearing in person, in response to a query of
this Court, has stated there was no concurrence of the District
Panchayat Election Officer for fixing a date of the meeting. There is
also nothing on record to suggest otherwise.
16. Having regard to the above and since, the power of the prescribed
authority for holding a meeting beyond 30 days is mandatorily
required to be exercised with the concurrence of the District
Panchayat Election Officer having regard to the nature of the
aforesaid Rule, I am of the view that the entire proceedings initiated
on the basis of the notice issued by the prescribed authority being
the respondent no. 6 is without jurisdiction, bad and cannot be
sustained. As a result, the consequential steps also stand quashed.
17. The aforesaid order shall, however, not interfere with the rights of
the respondent no. 6 to take immediate steps in the matter.
Accordingly, the respondent no. 6 is directed to forthwith take steps
in the matter and seek for concurrence of the District Panchayat
Election Officer and hold a meeting in accordance with law not later
than seven days from the date of communication of this order.
18. On the aspect of non compliance of the direction passed by this
Court, insofar as the respondent no. 3 is concerned, I find that the
respondent no. 3 has stated that he could not take steps since the

9
WPA 1643 of 2026
th
order dated 14 May 2026 was not available in his office and he
was not aware of the specific direction passed by this Court.
Although, the explanation does not appear to be adequate as he is a
party in the proceedings and the State was represented, however,
taking into consideration the fact that there was no previous
direction on him, this Court chooses to accept such explanation
with a direction that the respondent no. 3 must be careful in future.
19. Insofar as the respondent no. 6 is concerned, this Court finds the
explanation provided by the respondent no. 6 to be wholly
inadequate. The respondent no. 6 was obviously aware of the
th
direction passed by this Court on 28 January 2026. Despite the
same, he chose not to act on the basis thereof. Despite repeated
direction, he did not produce the records until the order was
communicated to him by the Learned Registrar General. Today, the
respondent no. 6 has appeared in person and has undertaken
before this Court that in future this conduct shall not be repeated.
As such, I propose to accept the explanation on the expressed
undertaking given by the respondent no. 6 that in future he shall
always promptly adhere to the directions passed by this Court.
20. Accordingly, the personal appearance of the respondent no. 6
stands dispensed with.
21. The records placed before this Court are returned to the Learned
advocate appearing for the State.

10
WPA 1643 of 2026
22. With the above direction and observations, the writ petition is
disposed of.
23. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly
downloaded from this Court’s official website.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J . )
Saswata
A.R. (Court)