A meeting without any elected Panchayat member is no meeting; Section 12(11)’s bar does not apply.

The petitioners, elected members of Dhoradaha-II Gram Panchayat, submitted a no-confidence motion seeking removal of the Pradhan on 23 June 2026. The Prescribed Authority fixed the meeting for 15 July 2026.

In an earlier proceeding, WPA 16314 of 2026, the High Court directed the Inspector-in-Charge, Thanarpara Police Station, to provide police assistance so that the meeting could be held peacefully. The Pradhan’s challenge to the no-confidence motion in WPA 16229 of 2026 was dismissed on 14 July 2026.

The petitioners alleged that they were threatened, prevented from leaving their residences, and detained on the date of the meeting, with their mobile phones allegedly being taken away. Consequently, they could not attend the meeting.

Although the Presiding Officer was present and police personnel were deployed, no elected member of the Gram Panchayat, including the Pradhan, attended the meeting.

The petitioners submitted a fresh motion on 7 August 2026, but the Prescribed Authority declined to take cognizance of it by relying on the one-year statutory embargo under Section 12(11) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.

Whether the gathering on 15 July 2026 constituted a “meeting” under Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 when no elected member of the Gram Panchayat was present and only the Presiding Officer attended?

Whether Section 12(11) barred the petitioners from submitting or pursuing a subsequent no-confidence motion on the ground that the scheduled meeting could not be held for want of quorum?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to submit a fresh motion after expiry of the statutory period under Section 12(10) and obtain consideration of that motion by the Prescribed Authority?

The Court applied Section 12(11) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, which provides that where a motion is not carried by the majority of existing members or the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, a subsequent motion for removal of the same office-bearer cannot be taken into cognizance within one year from the date appointed for the meeting.

The Court relied on the principle stated in Md. Ali Reza v. State of West Bengal, 2012 Supreme (Cal) 147, that in the absence of any elected member of the concerned Gram Panchayat there is no meeting at all; consequently, the question of quorum does not arise.

Referring to Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings, 11th ed., the Court observed that a meeting ordinarily requires more than one person and that a one-person meeting has no place in local-authority practice.

The Court distinguished Rashmi Singh v. State of Bihar, SLP (Civil) No. 12490 of 2024, as concerning the number of members voting in favour of a no-confidence motion, rather than the complete absence of elected members.

Section 12(10), including its prescribed timeframe, was also applied in determining the appropriate further course.

The Court treated the presence of the Presiding Officer alone as insufficient to constitute a meeting because he was not an elected member of the Gram Panchayat and could not vote.

Since no elected member attended on 15 July 2026, the Court held that there was no meeting in the legal sense, rather than a meeting that had failed for want of quorum.

Section 12(11) therefore did not apply: its one-year embargo is triggered only where a meeting has taken place or has failed for want of quorum, not where no meeting was held at all.

On that basis, the Prescribed Authority was wrong to reject the subsequent motion by invoking Section 12(11).

However, because the time prescribed under Section 12(10) had already expired, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh motion, which the Prescribed Authority would then be required to process in accordance with Section 12.

Accordingly, Section 12(11) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, did not create an embargo against a subsequent no-confidence motion.

Since the period under Section 12(10) had expired, the petitioners were granted liberty to submit a fresh motion before the Prescribed Authority.

If submitted, the Prescribed Authority was directed to proceed with it in accordance with Section 12, including the applicable statutory timeframe.

The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.