RABISHANKAR DAS 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 11873 of 2026
Rabishankar Das
versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
WPA 12102 of 2026
Nabendu Mahali
versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.
(in WPA 12102/26) Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta
Mr. Santanu Sett

For the petitioner : Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee,
(in WPA 11873/26) Ms. Suchismita Chakraborty
Mr. Debarnab Adhikary

For the State : Mr. D N Roy, ld GP
(in WPA 11873/26) Mr. Sovan Mukherjee
Ms. Aishwarya Rajashree
Mr. Guddu Singh
Mr. Arghya Chatterjee

For the State : Mr. Debasis Basu, ld AGP
(in WPA 12012/26) Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty

Heard on : 11.06.2026, 18.06.2026.

Judgment on : 23.06.2026
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):
1. The aforesaid two writ petitions has been filed with a common
th
cause, inter alia , challenging the show cause notice dated 19

2
th
November, 2025 and the order dated 16 December, 2025 whereby
the Governor has been pleased to declare that the Board of
Councillors of the Purulia Municipality is incompetent to exercise
statutory functions imposed on it in exercise of powers conferred
under Sub-Section (2) of Section 431 of the West Bengal Municipal
Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) and has
consequentially dissolved the Board of Councillors. The petitioner
th
also seeks to challenge the subsequent order dated 16 December,
2025 issued by the Governor in exercise of powers under Section
431(3) of the said Act whereby the Governor has been pleased to
appoint the sub Divisional Officer, Purulia Sadar as Administrator
with immediate effect for a period not exceeding 6 months or until a
newly elected Board of Councillors takes over charge, whichever is
earlier. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are taken up together
for consideration.
2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions claim to be elected
councillor of Purulia Municipality who had been elected pursuant to
the elections held in the year 2022.
3. According to the petitioners, all on a sudden a show-cause was
th
issued on 19 November, 2025, by invoking the powers under
Section 431(1) of the said Act. Though a response was filed dealing
th
with the points noted in the show-cause, the order dated 16
December, 2025 was passed thereby dissolving the Board of

3
Councillors, and by an order of even date an administrator was also
appointed to take charge of the affairs of the municipality.
4. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing in support of
the petitions has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions
of Section 430 and 431 of the said Act and would submit that the
aforesaid exercise of powers by the State is not in accordance with
the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
5. By placing before this Court, Section 430 of the said Act, he has
submitted that the State can exercise certain powers, in the event,
the State is of the view that the Board of Councillors had made
default in performance of duties and in such event, it is the duty of
the State to offer opportunity to the Board to remedy the breach by
fixing a period for due performance of such duty by the Board. In
the instant case, no such opportunity was provided.
6. By drawing the attention of this Court to the show-cause notice
th
dated 19 November, 2025, it is submitted that the Government
rd
issued the show-cause notice based on a mass petition dated 3
November, 2025. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, though it was
incumbent upon the State Government to disclose the mass petition
rd
dated 3 November, 2025 based on which the above show-cause
notice was issued, the said document was not disclosed in the
show-cause. This apart by placing before this Court the provisions
of Section 431(1) of the said Act, it is submitted that the State
Government did not, in the instant case, form an opinion for

4
initiating proceeding under Section 431(1) of the said Act, and in
absence of formation of such opinion, no proceedings under Section
431(1) of the said Act could have been initiated.
7. It is submitted that though, the Board had responded to the above
th
show-cause by a notice in writing dated 26 November, 2025, the
response given by the Board was not adhered to, and without
th
considering the same the order impugned dated 16 December,
2025 was passed.
8. By placing the above order, it is submitted that though an enquiry
report received from the District Magistrate, Purulia dated 9th
December, 2025 was considered by the State while passing the
order impugned, such enquiry report was not disclosed to the
petitioner. The aforesaid would constitute violation of the principles
of natural justice, apart from the statutory violations as indicated
hereinabove.
th
9. It is submitted that the order dated 16 December, 2025 dissolving
th
the Board cannot be sustained. The subsequent order dated 16
December, 2025 appointing the administrator is conditional upon
the dissolution of the Board. Since the prior order cannot be
sustained, the subsequent order also cannot be sustained. He
submits that in identical set of facts this Court has already
intervened and in support has placed reliance the judgment
delivered in the case of Maisura Begam vs. The State of West
Bengal & Ors. having neutral citation 2026:CHC AS:101 .

5
10. Learned Government Pleader and senior advocate appearing for
the State has however, drawn attention of this Court to the
provisions of Sections 430 and 431 of the said Act and submits that
the consideration for exercise of power under the two sections are
different. According to him, while in case of Section 431 if, the State
finds that there has been default on the part of the Board of
Councillors in performing any duty including duty in relation to the
municipality fund, appropriate action as contemplated in Sub-
section (2) of Section 430 of the said Act can be taken. However, if
the State Government is of the opinion that the Board of
Councillors has shown gross neglect in performance of duties, in
such case, the Sub-Sections of section 431 of the said Act are
applicable. In the instant case, he submits that there has been
gross neglect of duty. He further submits that the formation of
opinion by the State Government was on the basis of the report filed
by the District Magistrate. Since in the instant case, the State
Government had formed an opinion on the basis of the mass
petition and the subsequent report filed by the District Magistrate,
proceedings had been initiated under Section 431 of the said Act.
According to him, there is no requirement in law for disclosure of
the basis of formation of opinion by the State to the Board of
Councillors.
11. There is no irregularity in action taken by the State. The Board of
Councillors was duly put on notice of the proposed action. The

6
Board of Councillors did respond to the same upon being aware of
what was forthcoming and as such no interference is called for.
12. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, I find that admittedly, it is not in dispute that the two
petitioners in the two writ petitions had been elected as Councillors
under Purulia Municipality in the District of Purulia pursuant to
the elections held in the year 2022. It is also not disputed that the
Board of Councillors was in place prior to passing of the order dated
th
16 December, 2025. I find from the records that based on the
rd
mass petition dated 3 November, 2025, which is yet to see the
th
light of the day, a show-cause notice dated 19 November, 2025
was issued under the provisions of Section 431 of the said Act. In
this context, it may be noted that Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior
advocate appearing for the petitioner has attacked the aforesaid
notice on the ground that the same has not been issued in
consonance with the provisions of Section 431 of the said Act. To
morefully appreciate the above, the relevant provisions of Section
431 of the said Act are extracted herein below:
“431. Power of the State Government to intervene in
case of gross neglect or serious irregularity.— (1) If, in
the opinion of the State Government, the Board of
Councillors has shown gross neglect in the performance of
the duties imposed upon it by or under this Act or any
other law for the time being in force, or has committed
serious irregularities in the performance of such duties,
the State Government may by order direct the Board of

7
Councillors to show cause within the period specified in
the order why it shall not be dissolved on grounds of
charges mentioned in this order.
(2) If the Board of Councillors fails to answer the charges
within the period specified in the order or within such
further time as may be allowed by the State Government,
or if the answers do not convince the State Government, or
where more than two-thirds of the total number of
Councillors holding office for the time being have, for any
reason, resigned, the State Government may dissolve the
Board of Councillors by an order published in the Official
Gazatta with effect from the date of the order.
(3) When the order of dissolution has been passed, all the
powers and functions vested upon the municipal
authorities under this Act or any other law for the time
being in force, shall be exercised by such person or
persons to be designated as Administrator or Board of
Administrators as the State Government may appoint for
the purpose.
(4) A general election to the Municipality shall be held
within six months of its dissolution for the constitution of a
new Board of Councillors immediately thereafter:
Provided that the new Board of Councillors shall continue
only for the remainder of the period of which the dissolved
Municipality would have continued had it not been so
dissolved:
Provided further that when the period for which the Board
of Councillors would have continued is less than six
months, it shall not be necessary to hold any elections for
constituting a new Board of Councillors for such period.
[(5) Omitted.]
[(6) Omitted.]

8
(7) If any question arises as to what constitutes a gross
neglect or a serious irregularity under this section, the
opinion of the State Government as recorded in writing in
the order, under this section shall be final and conclusive
and the same shall not be questioned in any court of law. ”
13. As would appear from the above and ordinarily, the power under
Section 430 of the said Act is exercised in case of default committed
by the Board of Councillors, however, the power under Section 431
of the said Act is more drastic. In the instant case, since, the State
has initiated the proceedings directly under Section 431 of the said
Act, this Court has examined the said provision in detail.
14. As is apparent from a plain reading of the provision, such a
provision can be invoked only when the State Government is of the
opinion that the Board of Councillors has shown gross neglect in
the performance of its duties as imposed upon it by the statute.
However, to invoke such provision, the State Government has to, at
the first instance, form a opinion that the Board of
prima facie
Councillors has shown gross neglect in performance of duties. It is
the formation of such opinion of the State Government which is a
sine qua non for initiation of proceeding by issuing a show-cause
under Section 431(1) of the said Act.
15. From the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader,
the formation of the opinion was based on mass complaint as
regards the disruption of essential municipal services and
allegations on apathetic behavior of the Chairman and other officers

9
of the municipality, as also the subsequent report prepared by the
th
District Magistrate dated 9 December 2025. From the aforesaid as
also from perusal of the show cause notice, there is no way that the
show cause notice could identify the formation of any prima facie
opinion.
16. It is also apparent from the submissions of the learned
Government Pleader that the opinion was found by the State
Government by relying on the report of the District Magistrate dated
th
9 December, 2025 and as such it cannot be said that the State
Government had formed a prima facie opinion under Section 431(1)
th
of the said Act for issuance of the show cause dated 19 November
2025, as the report of the District Magistrate was yet to see the light
of the day. In fact, the State Government had initiated the enquiry
th
through the District Magistrate vide a notice dated 19 November,
2025 and as such the formation of opinion based on the aforesaid
report was not possible on the date when the show-cause notice
th
dated 19 November, 2025 was issued.
17. From a perusal of the show-cause notice it transpires that the
stoppage of cleansing of municipal roads, irregular clearing of
drainage, irregular and inadequate water supply, accumulation of
garbage due to lack of proper waste disposal by the municipal
authority, waste generated due to irregular clearing of drainage
causing different health hazards including disease like malaria
dengue etc. and apathetic behavior of the Chairman and other office

10
bearers of the municipality have been made grounds for issuing the
show-cause notice. I find that the aforesaid show-cause notice was
duly responded to by the municipal authorities.
18. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate for the petitioner
argues that the foundation of the show cause notice being mass
petition having not been disclosed, the same in effect vitiate the
entire proceeding.
19. A perusal of the aforesaid order impugned would, however,
demonstrate that the Government while considering the show-cause
notice and the response thereto, had also relied on an enquiry
th
report received from the District Magistrate, Purulia dated 9
December, 2025 which report was also incidentally, not supplied to
the petitioners in both the writ petitions.
20. Based on the aforesaid report received from the District
Magistrate, Purulia, the Governor had recorded in the order
impugned in the following terms:
“ AND WHEREAS on the basis of the findings mentioned in
above report, the District Magistrte, Purulia has concluded
that the Chairman and Board of Councillors Purulia
Municipality have shown negligence in performing their
duties resulting in disruption of essential municipal services
which is detrimental to public interest ”
21. Thus, it is clear from the above that the aforesaid report also
formed the basis for taking a decision for dissolving the Board of
Councillors. The decision was thus, based on materials which were

11
neither disclosed, nor supplied to the Board of Cuncillors. In
absence of disclosure of the aforesaid material, the Board of
Councillors did not get an appropriate opportunity to respond and
to defend the case. When the report of the District Magistrate dated
th
9 December, 2025 was considered by the State, it was the duty of
the State to supply the copy of the report, for the Board of
Councillors to appropriately respond to the same, especially when
the decision to dissolve the Board of Councillors was based on the
above report. Admittedly, in this case, the same had not been done.
In identical set of facts in the case of Maisura Begam (supra) this
Court had intervened. Having regard thereto, I am of the view that
in the instant case, there has been violation of principles of natural
justice. The order impugned thus, stands vitiated on the ground of
violation of the principles of natural justice.
22. This apart, I find that the learned Government Pleader insists
that only upon receipt of the report of the District Magistrate,
Purulia the State Government was in a position to form the opinion.
If such is the case, then the show cause issued by the State under
Section 431(1) of the said Act, in my view, would be a non starter
inasmuch as the date when the show cause notice was issued,
there is no question of formation of opinion as the report of the
District Magistrate, Purulia was yet to see the light of the day.
th
23. Having regard thereto, the order dated 16 December, 2025
passed by the Governor in exercise of power conferred under

12
Section 431(2) of the said Act, dissolving the Board of Councillors
cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.
th
24. Consequentially, the order dated 16 December, 2025 appointing
Sub-Divisional Officer, Purulia Sadaar as Administrator with
immediate effect, and the subsequent extension thereto by order
th
dated 12 June 2026 which has been brought on record by the
supplementary affidavit, also cannot be sustained and the same are
also accordingly set aside. All consequences shall follow.
25. After this order is dictated although, the learned Government
Pleader insists that appropriate liberty may be given to the State to
proceed and the above order should not stand as a bar, I am of the
view that no liberty is necessary for the State to proceed.
26. With the above observations and directions, both the writ
petitions stand disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite
formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J . )
tkm
A.R. (Court)