SHILPI BISWAS vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

07.09.2026
Item ADSL-1
Ct. No. 39 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AN CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 24388 of 2026

Shilpi Biswas
vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.


Mr. Vivekananda Bose
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag
Mr. Kaushik Bandopadhyay
… for the petitioner
Mr. Rahul Kr. Singh
Mr. Ratikanta Pal
Ms. Shrabona Sengupta
… for respondent nos.
10-23, 25, 26, 28-30
Mr. Sundar Gopal Bhattacharyya
Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu
… for the State
Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tiwari, ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amrit Sinha
Mr. Aniruddha Tewari
… for respondent nos.
31-34, 37, 38, 40, 43-45


1. Affidavit of service, filed on behalf of the petitioner in
court today, is taken on record.
2. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking directions,
inter alia , as follows: -
1.A writ in the nature of declaration do issue
declaring that the first ‘no confidence motion’
for removal of Sabhapatis/Sahakari
Sabhapatis of Hanskhali Panchayat Samity
th
dated 25 July, 2026 has failed and no
second ‘no confidence motion’ can be brought,

2
initiated or noted within one year from July,
25, 2026;
2. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue
directing the Respondents and/or their men,
agents, and/or subordinates, particularly the
Respondent Nos. 4, to set aside the Form-1E
th
dated 27 August 2026, whereby the meeting
th
scheduled to be held on 8 September 2026
has been convened for consideration of the
motion for removal of , or lack of confidence in
the Sabhapati/Sahakari Sabhapati of the
Hanskhali Panchayat Samiti with
consequential relief(s)
3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits
that the mandatory provision of Section 101(3) of the
West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (in short, ‘the said
Act’) was not followed by the prescribed authority while
fixing the date for ‘no confidence motion’ for removal of
the petitioner.
4. A total of 15 out of 38 members submitted a requisition
st
seeking a ‘no confidence motion’ on 21 August, 2026
against the petitioner, who was elected as Sabhapati of
Hanskhali Panchayat Samiti. Based on such ‘no
confidence motion’, respondent no. 4, the Sub-divisional
Officer, Ranaghat sub-division, Nadia, issued a notice on
th
27 August, 2026, for the second time to the petitioner

3
and the members, as the earlier meeting could not be
held or fructified.
5. It is further submitted that the notice was served by
hanging the same on the wall of the petitioner’s house on
st
1 September, 2026. The Notice was further sent
through registered post with an acknowledgement due
nd
card on 2 September, 2026. Admittedly, the petitioner
st
came to know about the notice on 1 September, 2026
whereas the date of “no confidence motion” was fixed for
08.09.2026 without allowing each of the members at
least seven clear days for consideration of the motion
and for arriving at a decision thereon. The authority has,
therefore, failed to comply with the requirement of clear
7 days' notice, as specified in Section 101(3) of the said
Act.
6. He further submits that the counting of clear seven days
excludes the day when the notice was served and the day
when the meeting will be held. The clear 7 days’ notice
should also exclude the General State Holidays, as
declared.
th
7. Learned counsel points out that 4 September, 2026
was declared a holiday on account of Janmashtami, were
th
followed by Saturday and Sunday, i.e., 5 September,
th
2026 and 6 September, 2026. So, if the total days are
calculated after excluding the aforesaid days, only three
days would remain, which is contrary to the provisions of
Section 103 (3) of the said Act. Therefore, notice issued

4
on 27.08.2026 for holding a meeting for ‘no confidence
motion’ on 08.09.2026 is liable to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of
the learned Single Judge passed in the case of Dipali
Halder Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WITH
Abdul hamid Molla Vs. The State of West Bengal &
Ors. WITH Asit Sardar Vs. The State of West Bengal
& Ors. WITH Asit Sardar Vs. Shaama Parveen
reported in 2018 SCC Online Cal 2833 , whereby the
Single Judge, relying upon the decision of the Division
Bench judgments clearly indicates that computing “the
clear days” means it must exclude the start date and the
date of meeting as well as Government declared holidays.
9. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent nos. 31-34, 37, 38, 40, 43-45 submits that
the language of Section 101(3) of the said Act says
otherwise. It clearly states seven days without indicating
working days. Section 101(3) is reproduced hereinunder:
“S. 101(3). The prescribed authority on receipt of
the motion shall satisfy himself that it conforms to the
requirements of sub-section 2 and on his satisfaction
shall specially convene, by issue of notice, within five
working days of the receipt of the motion, a meeting of
the Panchayat Samity to be held in its office fixing the
date and hour of the meeting and sending such notice
at least before clear seven days to each of its existing
members for consideration of the motion and for taking
a decision on it.”


10. Thus, it is an established statute that holidays should
not be excluded from the “clear seven days” and further,
only one day, i.e. date of service of notice or date of

5
meeting would be excluded as per the General Clauses
Act.
11. Therefore, the notice was received by the petitioner
before 7 days of the meeting for ‘no confidence motion’.
He further submits that earlier, no date was fixed for the
meeting for ‘no confidence motion’. Therefore, setting
aside of the second meeting for ‘no confidence motion’
does not arise as it has been fixed in accordance with
law.
12. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 10-
23, 25, 26, 28-30 submits similarly and supports the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
leaves the matter to the discretion of this Court.
13. Learned advocate representing the State produces the
report and submits that the provision of Section 103 of
the said Act was duly complied with and a time frame as
per the statute was also maintained. It is an admitted
st
fact that the petitioner received the notice on 1
th
September, 2026 and the date is fixed on 8 September,
2026. So, a clear seven days’ notice was given to the
petitioner for the meeting for ‘no confidence motion’.
Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and on perusal of the materials on record, the
report and the judgment cited by the petitioner, this
Court is fully satisfied that the period of clear 7 days
excludes both the date on which the notice was served

6
st
and the date of the meeting, i.e., 1 September, 2026
th
and 8 September, 2026, respectively. That being the
position, the mandatory requirement of clear seven days’
notice under section 101 (3) of the said Act was not
complied with by the authority, and the same should not
be allowed to continue as because purpose of sending
the notice at least before seven clear days is to enable
each member for consideration of the motion and for
taking a decision on participation.
th
15. Accordingly, the notice dated 27 August, 2026 fixing a
th
date on 8 September, 2026 for holding ‘no confidence
motion’ for removal of the petitioner is set aside.

16. It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will
not preclude the members from bringing a fresh “no
confidence motion” for removal of the petitioner, if so
desired.
17. With the above observations and directions, WPA 24388
of 2026 stands allowed.
18. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Consequently, connected applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
20. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
21. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of this
Court.

7

22. The concerned Department is directed to supply urgent
certified Photostat copy of this order to the parties, if
applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)