JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. Although, there were some factual differences in the two writ petitions, but as a common challenge had been thrown to the manner in which the District Panchayat Election Officer had proceeded with the discharge of his functions under rule 22 of the West Bengal Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 (for short Election Rules) and had issued the final notification in Form A1 of the Election Rules, the petitions were heard together.

2. All factual and legal aspects raised by the petitioners in the two writ petitions have been dealt with in this judgment and disposed of analogously.

3. WPA 27716 of 2022 was filed by a resident and a voter of the Domohana-XXII constituency, under the Domohana Gram Panchayat. He was aggrieved by the merger of two polling stations into one constituency. Challenging the draft notification dated October 19, 2022, the petitioner filed an objection before the District Panchayat Election Officer. A specific objection was raised to the effect that while in all other constituencies, one seat per 700 to 800 voters had been allowed in the said gram panchayat, but in case of Domohana-XXII, 94 Magnavita FPS having 816 voters and 95 Magnavita having 768 voters were clubbed together and one seat was allotted for 1584 voters. Such indiscriminate and arbitrary clubbing of the two polling stations into one, was contrary to the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (for short Panchayat Act) read with West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act, 2003 (for short the Elections Act) and the rules framed thereunder. A comparison was drawn between Dakshin Kochra FPS and Madhya Kochra SSK which were delimited into two separate constituencies, i.e., Domohana-XI and Domohana-XII. Similarly, 89 Dangi FPS Room No.1 and 90 Dangi FPS Room No.2 were delimited to Domohana-XVIII and Domohona-XIX which had 829 and 726 voters, respectively.

4. According to the petitioner, 94 and 95 Magnavita should be delimited into two separate constituencies, so that each could be represented by one elected representative.

5. The petitioners were called for a hearing, but it is alleged that the authority published the final notification on November 25, 2022 without dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition was filed for a direction upon the authority to alter the delimitation of Domohana-XXII Gram Panchayat, upon setting aside the final notification dated November 25, 2022. A further direction upon the prescribed authority to delimit Domohana-XXII constituency by separating Magnavita 94 and 95 into distinct constituencies, was sought.

6. WPA 2047 of 2023 was filed by a voter of Domohana-XXII constituency inter alia, alleging that although some of the voters had raised an objection with regard to the delimitation of the constituency and arbitrary clubbing of Magnavita 94 and 95 into a single constituency, the District Panchayat Election Officer issued the final notification without paying any heed to the demand of the people.

7. A prayer had been made to issue a mandamus upon the state government to divide Domohana Gram Panchayat into two gram panchayats in terms of Section 3(3)(c) of the Panchayat Act. Further prayers, similar to the one made in WPA 27716 of 2022, that is, mandamus upon the prescribed authority to delimit Domohana-XXII into two separate constituencies upon setting aside the final notification dated November 25, 2022, was also made.

8. Mr. Shamim Ahammed, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the writ petitions submitted that there were several stages in the entire process of delimitation and the prescribed authority ought to have acted within the four corners of the statute and the rules framed thereunder. Reference was made to Section 3(1) of the Panchayat Act by which the state government had been empowered to declare by a notification, any mauza or part of a mauza