Clear seven-day notice for no-confidence motions excludes both service and meeting dates.

The petitioner, elected as Sabhapati of Hanskhali Panchayat Samity, challenged a notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranaghat, fixing 8 September 2026 for consideration of a motion of no confidence/removal against her.

The motion was requisitioned by 15 of the 38 members of the Panchayat Samity on 21 August 2026, and the notice fixing the meeting was issued on 27 August 2026.

The notice was affixed to the petitioner’s residence on 1 September 2026 and was also sent by registered post on 2 September 2026.

The petitioner contended that, between service of notice on 1 September and the proposed meeting on 8 September, the statutory requirement of “at least before clear seven days” had not been satisfied.

Whether the notice dated 27 August 2026 fixing the no-confidence meeting for 8 September 2026 complied with the requirement under Section 101(3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 that notice be given “at least before clear seven days” to each existing member.

Whether the notice was liable to be set aside on the ground that the date of service and the date of the meeting had to be excluded while computing the seven clear days.

Whether setting aside the impugned notice would bar the members from bringing a fresh no-confidence motion.

Section 101(3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 requires the prescribed authority, upon receiving a valid no-confidence motion, to convene a meeting and issue notice to every existing member “at least before clear seven days” for consideration of and decision on the motion.

The Court applied the rule that, in computing “clear seven days,” both the date on which notice is served and the date fixed for the meeting must be excluded.

The Court also relied on the reasoning in Dipali Halder v. State of West Bengal , Abdul Hamid Molla v. State of West Bengal , Asit Sardar v. State of West Bengal and Asit Sardar v. Shaama Parveen , reported at 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 2833, concerning computation of clear days and exclusion of the relevant terminal dates.

The statutory requirement was treated as mandatory because it is intended to provide members adequate time to consider the motion and decide whether to participate.

The Court accepted that the petitioner received or became aware of the notice on 1 September 2026 and that the meeting was scheduled for 8 September 2026.

Applying Section 101(3), the Court excluded both 1 September, the date of service, and 8 September, the date of the meeting, from the computation. Consequently, the interval did not provide the required seven clear days.

The Court held that the respondents’ argument that the notice was valid merely because seven calendar days appeared between the relevant dates was inconsistent with the statutory requirement of “clear” seven days.

Since the requirement was mandatory and was intended to ensure meaningful consideration of the motion by each member, the notice could not be sustained.

The Court did not finally determine that no future motion could be initiated; instead, it preserved the members’ right to bring a fresh motion in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that setting aside the impugned notice would not prevent the members from bringing a fresh no-confidence motion against the petitioner, if otherwise permissible in law.

No order as to costs was made, and connected applications, if any, were disposed of.