N.K. Bhattacharya, J.@mdashThe writ petitioner is the Pradhan of Srichanda Gram Panchayat, 24 Parganas (South). The respondent nos. 7 to 16 are the members of the said Panchayat. They by a letter dated 1.12.93 intimated the Prodhan for convening a meeting within the statutory period for passing a no-confidence motion against the Prodhan. Pursuant to the said letter the Prodhan by a notice dated 17.12.93 had convened a meeting at Panchayat Office on 22.12.93, after giving notice to all concerned. The notices were duly received. The nonce has been annexed to the writ petition and marked annexure "A". On 22.12.93 the requisition meeting was held and the Upa-Pradhan was. in the chair. But none of the requisitionists turned up at the meeting. The meeting had to be adjourned sine die for want of quorum. The copy of the resolution adopted at the meeting has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure "D". Thereafter, the Pradhan convened a meeting on 2.4.94 by a notice dated 27.12.94. A copy of the said notice is annexed and marked as Annexure E to the writ petition. On receipt of the notice dated 27.12.93, some of the requisitionists wrote to the Block Development Officer, Magrahat-I for his opinion about the validity of the notice dated 27.12.93. In reply, the Block Development Officer by letter dated 31.12.93 intimated the respondent nos. 7 and others that there was no bar in calling such a meeting by the Prodhan. The said letter dated 31.12.93 has been annexed with the petition and marked as Annexure F. Thereafter the Prodhan received on 6.1.94 a notice dated 29.12.93 issued by the respondent nos. 7 to 16 by which a requisition meeting was called on 12.1.94 for removal of the Prodhan. A copy of the said notice dated 29.12.93 has been annexed with the writ petition and marked as Annexure "G". The contention Prodhan is that the effect of the notice dated 1.12.93 for convening a meeting for expressing no-confidence against the Prodhan had come to an end on 22.12.93. Thereafter there was no scope for convening a requisition meeting by issuance of the notice dated 29.12.93, in furtherance of and treating the notice dated 1.12.93 as a valid one. The writ petitioner has come before this court for the following reliefs:
a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forebear from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned notice dated 29.12.93 issued By the respondent nos. 7 to 16 being Annexure "G" for holding a meeting on 12.1.94 for expressing no-confidence against the Prodhan.
b) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to certify and transmit the records relating to the case to this court.
c) An interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from giving effect or further effect to the impugned notice dated 29.12.93 being Annexure "G".
In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 7 to 16 it has been stated that the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat was at first 19 but subsequently one member became Saha Sabhapati of Panchayat Samity and as such he would not remain as a member of the Gram Panchayat and accordingly the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat was reduced to 18. The writ petitioner was elected as Prodhan of the Gram Panchayat but subsequently she lost her majority and accordingly the respondent nos. 8 to 16 wrote a letter to the writ petitioner dated 1st December, 1993 for convening a meeting as per sections 12 and 16 of the W. B. Panchayat Act, 1973 for showing her majority. A copy of the said letter was also sent to the Block Development Officer. All concerned received the notice in due time. After the receipt of the said notice made annexure K to the affidavit-in-oposition the writ petitioner by a memo dated 17th December, 1993 convened a meeting at the office of the Gram Panchayat on 22nd December. 1993 A copy of the said notice has been marked as Annexure E to the affidavit-in-opposition but the said notice was not in accordance with law since 7 days clear notice is essential for the purpose of holding any meeting of the Gram Panchayat. The writ petitioner issued a notice for the purpose of discussion of certain routine matters of the Gram Panchayat on 4th January 1994 at the Panchayat Officer. The respondent Nos. 8 to 16 after the receipt of the said notice wrote to the Block Development Officer stating therein that the notice dated 27th December, 1993 for the purpose of convening a meeting on 4th January. 1994 with different agenda excluding the agenda of no confidence motion was improper. The writ petitioner was also mentioned about the fact. But the Block Development Officer by his letter dated 31.12.93 marked Annexure "G" to the A/O informed the respondent nos. 8 to 16 that there was no bar in calling the meeting by the Prodhan. The respondent nos. 8 to 16 issued a notice dated 29th December, 1993 for holding a requisition meeting on 12th January. 1994 of the said Gram Panchayat for removal of the writ petitioner from the post of Prodhan of the Gram Panchayat and also served a fresh notice upon all the members as also the Block Development Officer. A copy of the said notice has been annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition and marked letter "H", Thereafter the respondent nos. 8 to 16 wrote a letter to the Block Development Officer for sending an observer since the respondent nos. 8 to 16 were going to hold the meeting for removal of the writ petitioner at the requisition meeting on 12th January. 1994. This letter has been marked Annexure "J" to the affidavit-in-opposition. An Observer came from the office of the concerned. Block Development Officer and in that meeting it was resolved by 10 members of the Gram Panchayat that the writ petitioner did not have the majority for carrying on the activities as Prodhan of the Panchayat. A copy of the resolution was also forwarded to the Block Development Officer. According to the respondent nos. 8 to 16, the Prodhan has got no majority to remain as Prodhan in the Gram Panchayat and she should be removed at once.
2. In the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the writ petitioner, it has been stated that she has been enjoying the support of the majority members of the Gram Panchayat. It has been stated that the respondent nos. 8 to 16 did not attend the meeting on 22.12.93 as they knew very well that they have no majority. They also avoided the meeting on 4.1.94 on the same ground. According to her, the notice dated 29.12.93 was issued by the requisitionists in furtherance of the notice dated 1.12.93 which had lost its force when the requisition meeting on 22.12.93 could not be held due to lack of quorum. Therefore, the notice issued by the requisitionists on 29.12.93 had become void.
3. The main controversy in this case as appears from the submissions of the learned Advocates on the contending sides is whether the notice dated 29.12.93 marked Annexure "G" to the writ petition can be issued in pursuances of the notice dated 1.12.93. According to the writ petitioner, the notice dated 1.12.93 lost its force when the requisition meeting on 22.12.93 was called in pursuance of the notice of the requisitionists dated 1.12.93..This contention of the writ petitioner is without any foundation as the requisition meeting on 22.12.93 was held without giving seven clear days: notice by the Prodhan. Therefore, that meeting is not a meeting at all in the eye of law. The inactivity of the Prodhan after getting the notice date 1.12.93 for convening a requisition meeting from the foundation for the giving of the notice dated 29.12.93. There was nothing wrong in issuing the said notice marked Annexure "G" on the basis of the notice dated 1.12.93 marked Annexure "F" to the writ petition.
4. It appears from Annexure "A" that there is no mention about the removal of the Prodhan within the four corners of the said notice. But it appears from Annexe "G" that the main agenda of the requisition meeting is the proposal for removal of the Prodhan from her post. The question is whether Annexure "G" which is in continuation of Annexure "A" can contain something which was not there in Annexure "A". It has been held by this Court in Rohyan vs. Chamaikar Malitya, 89 CWN 1044 that the Prodhan was not liable to be removed from his post by a resolution of no-confidence against the Prodhan where in the notice there was no mention of any agenda for remote of the Prodhan.
5. Here in our case the only agenda is the proposal for removal of the Prodhan. But the question is whether such an agenda can be included in the Annexure "G" when there was no mention about it in Annexure "A".
6. u/s 12 of the W. B. Panchayat Act, 1973, a Prodhan can be removed from office by a resolution of the Gram Panchayat carried by the majority of the existing members of the Gram Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. When the requisitionists give a notice u/s 16(1) 2nd Proviso first part requiring the Prodhan to call a meeting, the Prodhan has to call a meeting within 15 days after giving intimation to the prescribed authority and seven days notice to the members of the Gram Panchayat. Naturally, the agenda of the meeting has to be stated in the notice to be given by the Prodhan. Unless the Prodhan knows the agenda he is not in a position to mention that in the notice. So in the notice under the first part under the second proviso to Section 16(1) of the Act, the agenda or the purpose of calling the meeting has to be stated. If the Prodhan fails to call the meeting under the second part of the proviso referred to above, then the requisitionists can convene a meeting under the third part of the said proviso. In the case at hand, there was in the eye of law, no notice given by the Prodhan under the second part of the second proviso to Section 16(1) of the Act on the basis of the first notice dated 1.12.93. But in that notice, the only agenda was the proposal of ''no-confidence'' against the Prodhan. The notice under the third part of the second proviso dated 29.12.93 (marked Annexe "G") contained the agenda of removal of the Pradhan in connection with the proposal of ''no-confidence'' against him. In Royhan''s case (supra) notice dated 1.10.84 did not contain any agenda about removal of the Prodhan. Pursuant to that notice the meeting of ''no confidence'' was not according to Law. In our case also applying the same calling the meeting for ''no-confidence'' was not according to law. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. A writ of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the impugned notice dated 29.12.93 (marked Annexure "G"). All interim orders stand vacated.
