Seven-Day Notice Requirement for No-Confidence Motion Meetings is Directory, Not Mandatory under Section 12(3).

The petitioner, elected Pradhan of Mahishbathani Gram Panchayat in August 2023, challenged a "no confidence motion" notice.

Private respondents initiated the motion on February 16, 2026. Following litigation in the High Court (WPA 5149/2026) and a subsequent Division Bench appeal (MAT 451/2026), the requisitionists were granted liberty to bring a fresh motion.

A fresh motion was submitted on March 18, 2026. The Prescribed Authority (Respondent No. 4) initially scheduled a meeting for April 6, 2026, but cancelled it due to police unavailability and law-and-order concerns.

A second notice was issued on April 13, 2026, re-scheduling the meeting for April 18, 2026. The petitioner moved the High Court to set aside this notice, alleging it provided less than the "clear seven days" required by statute.

1. Whether the requirement of sending notice at least before "clear seven days" under Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Gram Panchayat Act, 1973, is mandatory or directory.

2. Whether the completion of the removal process beyond the 30-day period prescribed in Section 12(10) vitiates the proceedings when the delay is due to circumstances beyond the authority's control.

Section 12 of the West Bengal Gram Panchayat Act, 1973, which governs the removal of a Pradhan.

Division Bench precedents in Tanuja Begum Laskar v. State of West Bengal (MAT 468/2022) and Prabati Murmu v. Sabina Hasda (MAT 992/2022), which established that the "clear seven days" notice period is procedural and not mandatory.

Aloke Pramanik v. State of West Bengal (1996) regarding the interpretation of the word "shall" in procedural statutes.

Ujwal Kumar Singha v. State of West Bengal (2017) and Usha Bharti v. State of U.P. (2014) regarding the democratic principle that elected officials must enjoy the confidence of the majority.

The Court observed that while Section 12(3) uses the word "shall" regarding the seven-day notice, the statute does not prescribe consequences for disobedience, rendering the provision directory.

Regarding the 30-day timeline in Section 12(10), the Court found that the April 18 meeting fell within 30 days of the receipt of the motion on March 20/22.

Even if it had exceeded that timeframe, the Court noted that Section 12(4) allows for delays due to reasons "beyond control," such as the inability to provide police personnel.

The Court emphasized that democratic institutions require the head to maintain the majority's confidence; therefore, minor procedural technicalities should not be used to thwart the will of the majority.

The Court further held that the rescheduling was justified under Section 12(4) due to law-and-order concerns. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the meeting for the "no confidence motion" was allowed to proceed.