IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, PRASENJIT BISWAS, JJ.
The State Election Commission & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Nimai Ray @ Nimai Roy & Ors. - Respondents
M.A.T. No. 2137 of 2023 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023
Decided On : 22-05-2024
Election - Writ Petition - Article 243-O, West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act 2003 - The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions governing election disputes, ruling that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative remedy under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents contested the Panchayat elections, but many of their votes were rejected due to a lack of signatures and seals by the Presiding Officer. They sought a recount, arguing that the rejection was unjust and undermined the electoral mandate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Election Commission failed to follow the rules regarding ballot paper rejection and should have allowed a recount. However, it ultimately ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the statutory framework governing election disputes.
Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable given the provisions of Article 243-O and the West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act, 2003, which prescribe specific remedies for election disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that election disputes must be resolved through the prescribed statutory forum, and the existence of an alternative remedy precludes the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
JUDGMENT :
Arijit Banerjee, J.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated September 27, 2023, passed by a learned Judge of our Court in WPA 16880 of 2023 being a writ petition filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal namely Nimai Ray (in short ‘Nimai’) and Bibi Najira (in short ‘Najira’). The present appellants were the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition. By the judgment and order impugned, the learned Judge rejected the decision of the State Election Commission not to recount the ballot papers in respect of the Panchayat Election in question and directed the Commission to recount the ballot papers which stood rejected on the ground of defect on the part of the Presiding Officer in not inscribing his signatures and not affixing the distinguishing rubber seal on the reverse of the ballot papers.
2. The respondents/writ petitioners approached the learned Single Judge with the following case:-
(b) The election took place on its scheduled date. i.e., July 8, 2023. It was a peaceful election held in free and fair manner.
(c) The total number of ballots used was 1093.
(d) The counting started at the scheduled time on July 11, 2023, in the presence of the writ petitioners and their agents. However, during the process of counting, disproportionate numbers of ballot papers being 758 and 752 respectively, were declared as invalid and the corresponding votes were cancelled.
(e) On enquiry, the writ petitioners came to know that the rejected ballot papers did not contain the seal and signature of the Presiding Officer and hence were discounted.
(f) The petitioners pleaded with the counting officials that since the vote was held peacefully and the true mandate of the electorate had been captured on the ballot papers, simply because of some laches or default on the part of the Presiding Officer, the concerned ballot papers should not be rejected. Such request was in vain.
(g) At the end of the counting it was found that the candidates who were declared winners in respect of the two concerned seats, won by a very narrow margin of only a few votes.
(h) It is not only in the interest of the petitioners but also for the sake of democratic principles that the issue should be probed into in detail by the intervention of the Constitutional Court under its all encompassing and extra ordinary writ jurisdiction preferably by some stoically neutral agency under the supervision of the Court.
3. With the aforesaid pleadings, the writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge praying for the following reliefs:-
(b) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the state authority to conduct the audit of the ballot papers.
(c) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Election Commission to order a recounting after taking into account of all ballot papers which are otherwise valid but for the absence of seal or signature of the presiding officer.
(d) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Election Commission to order re-poll if necessary.”
4. When the writ petition was moved, by an order dated 19.07.2023, the learned Judge called for a report in the form of affidavit from the State Election Commission and the Panchayat Returning Officer apropos the allegations made in
People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.
S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan & Ors.
Malam Singh v. The Collector, Sehore, & Ors.
West Bengal State Election Commission & Ors. v. Communist Party of India (Marxist) & Ors.
Karmaveer Tulshiram Autade & Ors. v. State Election Commission, Mumbai & Ors.
Election disputes must be addressed through statutory remedies, and writ petitions are not maintainable when an alternative remedy exists under the relevant election laws.
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 court ruled that election disputes must be resolved through statutory remedies as outlined in the West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act, 2003, and cannot be addressed via writ petitions due to cons....
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....
Interference in electoral matters after results are declared is barred by Articles 243-O and 243-ZG; the appropriate recourse is through an election petition.
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.
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.