KUDDUS ALI @ MD. KUDDUS ALI DEBAPRIYA MAJUMDER vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. — WPA/11605/2026
Case under West Bengal Gram Panchayat Act ,1973 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 26th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0227532026
Next Hearing
22nd May 2026
Filing Number
WPA/11512/2026
Filing Date
19-05-2026
Registration No
WPA/11605/2026
Registration Date
19-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 7 )
Judicial Branch
MANDAMUS SECTION
Decision Date
26th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KUDDUS ALI @ MD. KUDDUS ALI DEBAPRIYA MAJUMDER
Respondent(s)
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
NEW MOTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-05-2026 | NEW MOTION |
Orders
The West Bengal High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Kuddus Ali, a Panchayat Samiti Sabhapati (chairman), challenging a No Confidence Motion dated May 18, 2026. The petitioner argued the motion contained stigmatizing allegations against him regarding his performance, violating Section 101(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. However, the court found the motion merely expressed displeasure about his actions without making aspersions on his transparency or fitness for office—distinguishing it from precedent (Razia Sultana case) where serious character-based allegations constituted stigma. The court upheld the motion as valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The West Bengal High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Kuddus Ali, a Panchayat Samiti Sabhapati (chairman), challenging a No Confidence Motion dated May 18, 2026. The petitioner argued the motion contained stigmatizing allegations against him regarding his performance, violating Section 101(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. However, the court found the motion merely expressed displeasure about his actions without making aspersions on his transparency or fitness for office—distinguishing it from precedent (Razia Sultana case) where serious character-based allegations constituted stigma. The court upheld the motion as valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts