Notice for Panchayat Election beyond 30 days without District Election Officer’s concurrence and seven days' clear notice is void.

The petitioner, an elected member of Rajnagar Gram Panchayat, Malda, challenged a notice dated January 19, 2026, which scheduled a meeting to fill the vacant post of Pradhan for January 28, 2026

The previous Pradhan had been removed on August 25, 2025

The petitioner alleged that the notice was served only on January 21, 2026, violating the statutory 7-day notice period

Furthermore, since the vacancy had existed for over 30 days, the petitioner contended that the Prescribed Authority (Block Development Officer) lacked the jurisdiction to call the meeting without the mandatory concurrence of the District Panchayat Election Officer

The Court also noted significant procedural lapses and non-compliance by Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 regarding previous court orders and the production of records

1. Whether the notice served on the petitioner satisfied the requirement of a 7-day clear notice period under Rule 3(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975

2. Whether the Prescribed Authority has the jurisdiction to call a meeting to fill a casual vacancy beyond 30 days without the concurrence of the District Panchayat Election Officer under Rule 6(1)

The Court applied Rule 3(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975, which mandates that the Prescribed Authority serve a written notice in Form-1 to all members at least seven days before the date fixed for the election of a Pradhan

It further relied on Rule 6(1) of the same Rules, which stipulates that a meeting to fill a casual vacancy must be called within thirty days, and any meeting held beyond this period requires the explicit concurrence of the District Panchayat Election Officer, with reasons recorded in writing

The Court found that the notice was served on January 21, 2026, for a meeting on January 28, 2026, which mathematically failed to provide the "7 days' clear notice" required by Rule 3(1)

Regarding Rule 6(1), the Court observed that the vacancy arose on August 25, 2025, but the meeting was only called in January 2026, far exceeding the 30-day limit

Upon inquiry, Respondent No. 6 admitted that no concurrence had been obtained from the District Panchayat Election Officer

The Court reasoned that because the power to hold a meeting after 30 days is conditional upon such concurrence, the action of the Prescribed Authority was "without jurisdiction" and "nonest"

The Court also addressed the contumacious conduct of the officials but ultimately accepted their explanations for non-compliance with court directions upon their personal appearance and undertakings

It answered both issues in the negative, finding the notice period insufficient and the lack of concurrence fatal to the jurisdiction

The Court directed Respondent No. 6 to immediately seek concurrence from the District Panchayat Election Officer and hold a fresh meeting in accordance with the law within seven days of the order

The writ petition was disposed of with a warning to the officials to be more diligent in following judicial directions