State Cannot Dissolve Municipality Without Fair Hearing: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Purulia Civic Board's Dissolution
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the West Bengal Government's decision dissolving the Board of Councillors of the Purulia Municipality, holding that the action was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice as the State relied upon a District Magistrate's inquiry report without supplying it to the elected councillors.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held that the State also failed to satisfy the statutory pre-condition under Section 431 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, namely the formation of a prima facie opinion that the Board had shown "gross neglect" in the performance of its statutory duties before issuing the show cause notice proposing its dissolution.
The petitions were filed by elected councillors of the Purulia Municipality challenging the Governor's orders dated December 16, 2025 dissolving the Board of Councillors under Section 431(2) of the Act and appointing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Purulia Sadar, as Administrator.
The State had justified the dissolution by alleging disruption of essential municipal services, including irregular garbage disposal, inadequate water supply, poor drainage maintenance and neglect by the municipal authorities. It argued that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of a mass complaint and a subsequent inquiry conducted by the District Magistrate.
The Court, however, found that neither the mass complaint, which formed the basis of the show cause notice, nor the District Magistrate's inquiry report dated December 9, 2025, which was relied upon while passing the dissolution order, had been furnished to the Board of Councillors.
Holding that such non-disclosure deprived the elected body of an effective opportunity to defend itself, the Court observed:
"When the report of the District Magistrate dated 9th December, 2025 was considered by the State, it was the duty of the State to supply the copy of the report, for the Board of Councillors to appropriately respond to the same, especially when the decision to dissolve the Board of Councillors was based on the above report."
Justice Chowdhury held that the order was therefore vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Court also examined the statutory scheme under Section 431 of the West Bengal Municipal Act and held that formation of a prima facie opinion by the State Government regarding "gross neglect" is a sine qua non for initiating dissolution proceedings.
The Court observed that the State itself had argued that such opinion was formed on the basis of the District Magistrate's report dated December 9, 2025. However, the impugned show cause notice had been issued much earlier, on November 19, 2025.
In these circumstances, the Court held that the statutory requirement had not been met, observing:
"The show cause issued by the State under Section 431(1) of the said Act, in my view, would be a non starter inasmuch as the date when the show cause notice was issued, there is no question of formation of opinion as the report of the District Magistrate... was yet to see the light of the day."
Accordingly, the Court quashed the Governor's order dissolving the Board of Councillors as well as the consequential order appointing the Administrator and the subsequent extension of the Administrator's tenure.
While the State sought liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, the Court declined to grant any specific permission, observing that no such liberty was necessary if the State intended to proceed in accordance with law.
Case Title: Rabishankar Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors. with Nabendu Mahali v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No: WPA 11873 of 2026