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

2024 Supreme(Cal) 828

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Dr. Subhra Nandy – Petitioner
Versus
The Returning Officer, West Bengal Dental Council and Others – Respondents
WPA No. 27672 of 2023 with WPA No. 27846 of 2023 and CAN 1 of 2023
Decided On : 22-02-2024
.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kallol Basu, Mr. Suman Banerjee, Mr. Atreya Chakraborty.
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Mr. Satyaki Banerjee, Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Mr. Arka Kumar Nag.

The main legal point established is that the Returning Officer has the authority to alter the Election Notification and re-schedule the election dates without issuing a fresh Notification, as per the Dentists Act, 1948 and the West Bengal Dentists Rules, 1950.

Headnote:

Election Dispute - Dentists Act, 1948 - Section 21, 25, 26, 27 - West Bengal Dentists Rules, 1950 - Rule 1(d), 2(2), 5(1), 8(2) - General Clauses Act - Section 21, 22 - Election Notification Alteration - Summary of Acts and Sections

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenge the alteration of election schedule for the West Bengal Dental Council by the Returning Officer, citing violations of the Dentists Act, 1948 and the West Bengal Dentists Rules, 1950. The dispute involves the extension of dates for dispatch of ballot papers, addition of the Vice-President as a signatory, and the impact of the newly enacted National Dental Commission Act of 2023.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Vice-President could be added as a signatory as per the 1963 Notification, and the change of venue for sending ballot papers did not vitiate the election process. The court also rejected the argument that the impending National Dental Commission Act should deter the elections, and ruled that the State Council elections could proceed independently of the stalled Central Council election. The court held that the Returning Officer had the power to alter the Election Notification and re-schedule the election dates without issuing a fresh Notification.

Issues: The issues involved the addition of the Vice-President as a signatory, change of venue for sending ballot papers, impact of the National Dental Commission Act, and the authority of the Returning Officer to alter the Election Notification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Vice-President could act as a signatory as per the 1963 Notification, the change of venue did not violate the law, and the impending National Dental Commission Act did not justify stalling the elections. The court also ruled that the State Council elections could proceed independently of the Central Council election, and the Returning Officer had the power to alter the Election Notification and re-schedule the election dates.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the challenges and directed the Returning Officer to issue a proper Notification for re-scheduling the election process and conclude the rest of the election process as per the rescheduled timeline.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioner in WPA No. 27846 of 2023 claims to be the President of the West Bengal Dental Council, whereas the petitioner in WPA No. 27672 of 2023, a member of the said Council. The challenge in both the writ petitions being common, those are heard together and being decided by a common judgment and order. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in WPA No. 27846 of 2023 shall be referred to as “the petitioner” hereinafter.

2. The challenge in both the writ petitions is primarily two-fold. The petitioner, claiming to be the President of the West Bengal Dental Council, argues that the Registrar, acting as Returning Officer, has no power to alter the election schedule for the Council, once published, under the Dentists Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, “the 1948 Act”) and/or the West Bengal Dentists Rules, 1950 (in brief, “the 1950 Rules”). Thus, it is argued that the decision of the respondent no. 1-Returning Officer to extend the dates from the stage of dispatch of ballot papers onwards is bad in law. The last date for such dispatch, according to the schedule of elections published by the Returning Officer on June 14, 2022 in the Official Gazette, was November 10, 2023. The respondent no. 1 called a meeting without the consent of the petitioner/President and altered the date of dispatch of the ballot papers. Such extension is in contravention of Rule 1(d) of the Rules and Section 21(a) or (b) of the 1948 Act, it is argued.

3. In such context, the petitioner cites Strawboard Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Gutta Mill Worker’s Union, reported at (1952) 2 SCC 746.

4. It is next argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 acted under pressure from a certain section of members of the Council and Government dictate in altering the dates and altering the venue for dispatch of ballot papers.

5. By an e-mail dated November 7, 2023 addressed to the President, the respondent no. 1/Returning Officer stated that he had undertaken steps for dispatch of ballot papers from the New Town Post Office and that he was physically attacked and surrounded by persons who demanded a change in the venue of ballot dispatch. However, such initial stance was changed by the respondent no. 1 in his e-mails dated November 22, 2023, November 23, 2023 and November 24, 2023. In such subsequent e-mails, although reference was made to the verbal instructions of the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal for change of Post Office, there was no mention of the order dated November 10, 2023 whereby the Deputy Secretary directed the respondent no. 1 to take steps as per the Rules and Regulations to ensure completion of the election process.

6. It is argued that the contents of the e-mail dated November 7, 2023 and the subsequent e-mails of November 22, November 23 and November 24, 2023 are in stark contrast to each other and cast serious doubts over the decision of the respondent no. 1 to change the venue.

7. It is argued further that Rule 5(1) of the 1950 Rules merely lays down the procedure to be followed in case any nomination paper does not comply with the statutory Rules. The substantive phrase of the said Rule “On the date and at the time as fixed for scrutiny of nominations by the notification under Rule” shall apply because the election schedule dated June 14, 2022 clearly specifies the date of scrutiny for nomination papers to be November 10, 2023. Section 14 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with Rule 5(1) does, not come in aid of the respondents.

8. The petitioner places reliance on Rule 2(2) of the 1950 Rules which states that the notification shall be published 14 days before the date fixed in the programme of time to be the last date for receiving nomination papers and except in the case of the first general election under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 21 on a date not less than 42 days and not more than 75 days before the date on which the term of office of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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