SUNAM KALOWAR BIKASH SINGHA vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS — WPA/811/2026
Case under West Bengal Panchayat Act ,1973 Section N/A. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 10th June 2026.
CNR: WBCHCJ0021252026
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
WPA/827/2026
Filing Date
08-06-2026
Registration No
WPA/811/2026
Registration Date
09-06-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 7 )
Judicial Branch
MANDAMUS SECTION
Decision Date
10th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SUNAM KALOWAR BIKASH SINGHA
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK
NEW MOTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-06-2026 | NEW MOTION |
Orders
Case Summary: WPA 811/2026 The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the writ petition filed by Sunam Kalowar, the Pradhan of Gitaldaha-I Gram Panchayat, challenging a notice issued for her removal meeting. The court held that the removal notice issued on 1 June 2026 was valid because it was issued after the mandatory two-and-a-half-year statutory period under Section 12(12) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, had expired since her election on 11 August 2023. The petitioner's argument that a proposed amendment extending this period to three years applied was rejected, as the amendment bill had not received gubernatorial assent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WPA 811/2026 The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the writ petition filed by Sunam Kalowar, the Pradhan of Gitaldaha-I Gram Panchayat, challenging a notice issued for her removal meeting. The court held that the removal notice issued on 1 June 2026 was valid because it was issued after the mandatory two-and-a-half-year statutory period under Section 12(12) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, had expired since her election on 11 August 2023. The petitioner's argument that a proposed amendment extending this period to three years applied was rejected, as the amendment bill had not received gubernatorial assent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts