IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
T.S. Sivagnanam, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, JJ.
West Bengal Pharmacy Council And Another – Appellants
Versus
Rusha Podder And Others – Respondents
MAT NO. 411 OF 2023 (I.A. NO. CAN 01 & 02 OF 2023)
Decided On : 19-05-2023
JUDGMENT :
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
1. This intra court appeal has been filed by the West Bengal Pharmacy Council challenging the correctness of the order passed in WPA No. 509 of 2023 dated 28.02.2023 filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein. The respondent writ petitioners had filed the writ petition praying for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the appellants/authorities to forthwith grant a hearing of the objections raised by them vide email dated 01.01.2023; to issue a writ of prohibition to restrain the appellant from sending election papers to the electors on January 09, and January 10, 2023 and for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated December 20, 2022 by which the appellant council published the list of accepted/rejected candidates for the election to the West Bengal Pharmacy Council.
2. The Learned Single Bench by the impugned order held that the rejection of the nomination of the respondent writ petitioners was flawed and directed the appellant council to reconsider the nominations filed by the writ petitioners in accordance with Rule 5(1) of the Rules for Election of Members including the President and the Vice President of the West Bengal Pharmacy Council and of the Members of the Executive Committee of the said council. The learned writ court further directed that the appellant council will give effect to the final list/notice published on 20.12.2022 only after the direction is complied with. Further it was observed that since the last election of the council was held in 2007 with the tenure of office expired in 2013, no prejudice is caused if the question of the writ petitioner’s candidatures is decided within the time directed. The appellant council being aggrieved by such order have preferred this appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Kishore Dutta, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Avik Ghatak, Mr. Soham Banerjee, Mr. Parashar Baidya and Mr. Soham De Dhara, learned advocates for the appellants. Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee assisted by Ms. Debdooti Dutta, learned advocates for the state. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee assisted by Mr. Rahul Karmakar and Ms. Gargi Goswami learned advocates for the respondent. Mr. Ananta Shaw assisted by Mr. Falguni Bandyopadhyay, Ms. Sreetama Neogi and Ms. Riya Ballav learned advocates for the appellants in CAN No. 02 of 2023.
4. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder. The writ petitioners are registered pharmacists under the appellant council having valid registration as on the date when they filed the writ petition. It was stated that 15 members constitute the body of the council and out of the said 15 members, 6 members are elected among the registered pharmacists of the State of West Bengal, 5 members to be nominated by the State of West Bengal of whom 3 must possess prescribed degree or diploma in pharmacy and one member has to be elected from the West Bengal Medical Council and the other three members are ex-officio Chief Administrative Medical Officer, Ex-officio Officer-in-charge, Drugs Control and Ex Officio Government analyst under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the entire panel of members as specified under Section 19 of the PHARMACY ACT , 1948. The writ petitioners sought to bring out the lacunae in the election process to be held for the members under Section 19 (1)(a) of the PHARMACY ACT . It was stated that in terms of the Rules of Election which were published in the Calcutta Gazette on 21.07.1966, the Registrar, the second appellant, is empowered to Act as a returning officer for conducting and holding the elections. Rule 2 of the said rules provides for preparation of draft electoral roll followed by the final electoral roll after effecting correction in the said draft, if any. Rule 3 relates to the nomination of candidates whose names appear in the said final roll. Rule 5 provides for a Dispute Redressal Mechanism in case of a
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Pradesh Versus Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigah
Election Commission of India through Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar and others
Election Commission of India Versus Ashok Kumar & Ors.
K. Venkatachalam Vs. A. Swamickan
Karma Veer Tulshiram Autade and ors. Versus State Election Commission, Mumbai and ors.
Maharashtra Chess Association Versus Union of India
Mohinder Singh Gill Versus Chief Election Commissioner
N.P. Ponnuswami Versus Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency
Shaji K. Joseph Versus V. Viswanath and Others
Smt. Gunwant Kaur and Ors. Versus Municipal Committee, Bhatinda
A challenge to an improper rejection of nomination in connection with an election process under Rule 5(1) of the Election Rules is amenable to challenge in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Co....
A writ petition is not maintainable to challenge the rejection of a nomination form for a Gram Panchayat election, as Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution bars such a challenge.
The rejection of nomination papers constitutes an election dispute, resolvable only through an election petition as per statutory provisions, emphasizing judicial restraint in electoral matters.
The right to contest an election is a statutory right, and the challenge to the rejection of nomination papers through a writ petition is not maintainable during the election process. The remedy of f....
Writ courts cannot intervene in nomination rejections during electoral processes under Article 226; jurisdiction is limited unless significant administrative errors invalidate the election process.
The rejection of nomination papers during the election process does not warrant a writ petition, and the appropriate remedy is to file an election petition after the election is completed.
The court affirmed that challenges to election nominations must be made post-election through an election petition, as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to contest an election is a statutory right, and the appropriate remedy for challenging the rejection of nomination papers is to fil....
A writ petition is not maintainable to challenge an order of rejection of nomination paper by the Returning Officer/competent authority having regard to the provisions in Article 243-O of the Constit....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.