SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Manjula Chellur, Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
Pranoy Roy - Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 6063 (W) of 2015
Decided On : 16-4-2015

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Anindya Kumar Mitra, Joydip Kar, A. Mitra, A. Chakraborty, A. Kankari and S. Sengupta, Advocates
For the State Respondents:Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Ld. Advocate General, Abhratosh Majumdar, Subhobrata Dutta and T.M. Siddiqui, Advocates
For the Election Commission :N.C. Bihani, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 3:A. Mitra, S. Ganguli and Pooja Chakravorti, Advocates
For the Respondent No. 4:Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Advocates
For the Respondent No. 7:S.K. Kapoor and Partha Ghosh, Advocates
For the Respondent No. 8:Subroto Mukhopadhyay and Malavika Bhowmick, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

Manjula Chellur, J.

The grievances ventilated in this Writ Petition by the Writ petitioner, in brief, are set out hereunder:-

2. By end of July 2013, term of 17 Civic Bodies in the State of West Bengal came to an end. But the State declined to hold elections citing some reason or the other. Aggrieved by this, the Election Commission approached this Court seeking directions to issue notification for holding elections in respect of 17 Municipalities. Meanwhile, tenure of State Election Commissioner ended which again contributed for the delay to hold elections in time as some time was taken for appointment of the new State Election Commissioner. W.P. No. 18019 of 2014 already filed was prosecuted by the new Election Commissioner. On 10.9.2014, submissions were made on behalf of the State Election Commission that steps will be taken by the parties to the Writ Petition in accordance with law for holding elections to 10 Municipalities referred to in the above order. So far as other Municipalities, it was submitted that holding election was not possible on account of constitution/re-constitution of Municipalities as well as extension of Municipal Corporation of Asansol. This was not objected to by the State Election Commission is the complaint of the present writ petitioner.

3. Out of 121 Municipal bodies and 6 Municipal Corporations, tenure of 17 Municipal Bodies had already expired and tenure of 83 Municipal Bodies is due to expire by June 2015. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the dates of holding elections to the Municipalities have to be announced by a notification to be published in the Gazette by the order of the State Election Commissioner and not simply by an order of the Secretary to the West Bengal State Election Commission.

4. In the above background, the writ petition is filed challenging provisions of Section 8 of West Bengal State Election Commission Act of 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Act VIII of 1994), and Section 36(3) of West Bengal Municipal Election Act of 1994, (hereinafter referred to as Act XXXIV of 1994). It is contended that these two Sections are ultra vires to the provisions of Constitution, especially Article 243(K) & Article 243(ZA). The writ petition was presented on 3.3.2015 which came up before the Bench on 13.3.2015. No interim order was sought. On 20.3.2015, learned Government Advocate submitted, on account of process of merger of Municipalities, election process was not taken in respect of Asansol, Jamuria, Kulti, Ranigunj, Rajarhat, Gopalpur, Bidhannagar and Bally. Hence we directed the State to place affidavit-in-opposition on record.

5. The matter came up again on 23.3.2015 and adjourned till 24.3.2015. On 24.3.2015 the writ petitioner filed supplementary affidavit along with the notification dated 16.3.2015 and 18.3.2015 wherein they had sought for quashing the said notifications. On 24.3.2015 affidavit-in-opposition was directed to be filed by 3.4.2015 and reply if any by 6.4.2015 so that the main writ petition could be disposed of on merits. The matter was heard on merits extensively on behalf of the petitioner, the Government, the State Election Commission and private respondents.

6. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:-

a. Declare Section 8 of the West Bengal State Commission Act, 1994 as being ultra vires of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 and 243-K, read with Article 243-ZA of the Constitution of India and/or unconstitutional and/or null and void;

b. Declare Section 36(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Elections Act, 1994 as being ultra vires of Article 14, 19, 21 and 243-ZA, of the Constitution of India and/or unconstitutional and/or null and void;

c. Declare that the superintendence, direction, control and conduct of all elections to the Municipalities in the State of West Bengal are vested in the State Election Commission appointed by the Governor of the State;

d. Writ or writs in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding and directing the respon












































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top