### REQUISITION FOR REMOVAL OF PANCHAYAT OFFICE BEARER WITHOUT STIGMATIC ALLEGATIONS DOES NOT TRIGGER PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

The appellant, a Sabhapati of a Panchayat Samiti, challenged a ‘No Confidence Motion’ dated May 18, 2026, initiated by several private respondents.

The appellant filed a writ petition seeking to quash the motion, arguing that it contained "stigmatic" allegations which necessitated a prior opportunity for a hearing under principles of natural justice.

A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on May 26, 2026, finding that the motion merely expressed displeasure and lacked aspersions.

The appellant then moved this intra-court appeal before the Division Bench.

1. Whether the allegations contained in the 'No Confidence Motion' were stigmatic in nature, thereby requiring a formal inquiry or an opportunity for representation before proceeding.

2. Whether the procedural requirements of Section 213 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, apply to a motion brought under Section 101 of the same Act.

The court examined Section 101 and Section 213 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973; the former governs removal via motion of no confidence by members, while the latter involves removal by the Prescribed Authority for willful omission or abuse of power, specifically mandating an opportunity for representation.

State of West Bengal v. Tapas Roy (2006) 6 SCC 453, which holds that an order is stigmatic only if it finds guilt in moral turpitude or misconduct beyond mere unsuitability.

Razia Sultana v. State of West Bengal (2023) regarding allegations of "lack of transparency" and Ujjal Mondal v. State of West Bengal (2013) regarding allegations of "illegal activities", both of which were held to be stigmatic.

The Court compared the language used in the subject motion with established precedents, noting that in Razia Sultana and Ujjal Mondal, the use of words like "non-transparent" or "illegal activities" carried an innuendo of self-aggrandizement or moral turpitude, thus requiring natural justice.

In the present case, the motion merely expressed "displeasure" of the requisitionists regarding the appellant's actions as Sabhapati; applying the Tapas Roy standard, the Court found the motion did not allege moral turpitude or misconduct, but rather focused on the members' loss of confidence.

The Court clarified that since the requisitionists proceeded under Section 101 (relying on democratic confidence) rather than Section 213 (relying on state-led disciplinary removal), the mandatory hearing provision of Section 213(2) did not apply.

The appeal was dismissed, the connected application was disposed of, and the Court permitted the Prescribed Authority to proceed with the motion in accordance with the law.