Dissolution of Jalpaiguri Municipality Board Set Aside for Denying Councillors a Meaningful Hearing

The petitioners claimed to be elected Councillors of Jalpaiguri Municipality pursuant to the 2022 municipal election.

The State first issued an order under Section 430(1) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, alleging administrative disruption, failure to provide essential civic services, irregularities in payment of wages, pension and gratuity, and other governance-related deficiencies.

The petitioners submitted a response and sought disclosure of the material underlying the allegations.

Thereafter, on 24 August 2026, the Governor issued a show-cause notice under Section 431(1), relying, inter alia, on reports of the SDO, Executive Engineer and other authorities, requiring the Board of Councillors to respond within three days.

The notice was served on 25 August 2026, effectively granting only two days to respond.

Fifteen Councillors submitted a response, objecting to the non-disclosure of the relied-upon reports and the inadequacy of the time granted.

On 27 August 2026, the State dissolved the Board under Section 431(2), treating the individual Councillors’ response as insufficient because it had not been filed by the Board collectively, and on 28 August 2026 appointed an Administrator under Section 431(3).

The petitioners challenged the show-cause notices, the dissolution order and the appointment of the Administrator.

CAN 1 was filed by Dinesh Routh and was withdrawn due to defects in the application; CAN 2 was filed by Saikat Chatterjee, who claimed an interest as the former Chairman.

1. Whether the dissolution of the elected Board under Section 431(2) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, without furnishing the reports and documents relied upon in the show-cause notice and dissolution order, violated the principles of natural justice and the constitutional requirement of a reasonable opportunity of hearing under Article 243U(1).

2. Whether granting only two effective days to respond to the Section 431(1) show-cause notice constituted a meaningful and reasonable opportunity to defend against the proposed dissolution.

3. Whether the State could disregard the response submitted by fifteen individual Councillors on the ground that it was not filed by the Board of Councillors collectively.

4. Whether the consequential appointment of an Administrator under Section 431(3) could survive after the dissolution order was set aside.

The Court applied Article 243U(1) of the Constitution of India, which protects the five-year tenure of a Municipality and requires that it be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before dissolution.

Section 431(1) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 requires the State Government to specify the grounds of proposed dissolution and call upon the Board to show cause; under Section 431(2), dissolution may follow only if the explanation is not submitted within the permitted period or does not satisfy the Government, while Section 431(3) authorises appointment of an Administrator only after a valid dissolution.

The Court held that the opportunity under Article 243U and Section 431 must be meaningful rather than illusory, requiring disclosure of the material relied upon and reasonable time to respond.

The Court also relied on its earlier decision in Maisura Begam v. State of West Bengal & Ors., neutral citation 2026:CHC-AS:101, and other coordinate Bench decisions concerning dissolution of elected municipal bodies.

The State’s dissolution order relied on several reports, including the SDO’s report dated 24 August 2026, but those documents were not supplied to the petitioners before the decision was taken.

Since the show-cause notice was served only on 25 August 2026 and the Board was required to respond within three days from issuance, the petitioners effectively received approximately two days to address serious allegations carrying the consequence of premature dissolution.

The Court held that this was not a reasonable or meaningful opportunity, particularly because the notice itself had been addressed to the individual Councillors and fifteen Councillors had in fact submitted a response raising the non-disclosure issue.

Consequently, the State could not reject their response merely because it was not presented collectively in the name of the Board.

The failure to disclose the foundational materials and to provide adequate time to answer them vitiated the decision-making process and rendered the dissolution a colourable exercise of power contrary to Article 243U(1) and Section 431.

Because the dissolution was invalid, the consequential appointment of the Administrator under Section 431(3) also could not stand.

CAN 1 of 2026 was dismissed as withdrawn due to defects in the application.

CAN 2 of 2026 was dismissed, as the applicant had not established that he had responded to the show-cause notice and had admittedly ceased to be Chairman.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.