A Vice-Chairman may convene a requisitioned special meeting when the Chairman fails to do so.

Kalyani Ghosh, Chairman of the Board of Councilors of Kharagpur Municipality, sought to quash a requisition dated 9 September 2026 by councilors seeking a special meeting on a no-confidence motion against her.

She contended that the requisition notice had not been served on her as required by Rule 9(3)(b)(i) of the West Bengal Municipalities (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1995, and that the meeting therefore could not proceed.

The State produced the requisition, signed by 15 councilors and addressed to the Chairman, and a notice issued by the Vice-Chairman convening the meeting for 5 October 2026 under Rule 9(3)(b)(ii).

The Court noted that the petitioner’s assertion of non-service was affirmed as a submission, rather than as true to her knowledge, and that the petition showed she had knowledge of the requisition.

1. Whether the alleged failure to serve the requisition notice on the petitioner as Chairman invalidated the proposed special meeting.

2. Whether the Vice-Chairman was entitled to convene the meeting after the petitioner did not do so, and whether that meeting notice disclosed any irregularity.

The Court considered Section 18(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, concerning a requisition by elected councilors for a meeting, together with Rule 9(3)(b)(i) and (ii) of the West Bengal Municipalities (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1995, which governed the notice and convening of the special meeting.

The Court’s application of the provisions proceeded on the basis that, where the Chairman did not convene the meeting, the Vice-Chairman could convene it under Rule 9(3)(b)(ii).

The Court found that the requisition was addressed to the Chairman and that the petitioner’s claim of non-service was not affirmed as a statement within her personal knowledge.

It also considered the petitioner’s own pleadings sufficient to show that she knew of the requisition, and therefore declined to enter into a factual dispute about service.

As the petitioner had not convened the meeting, the Vice-Chairman issued the meeting notice under the authority of Rule 9(3)(b)(ii); the Court found no irregularity in that step.

dismissed the writ petition without any order as to costs.