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

2024 Supreme(Cal) 1466

ARIJIT BANERJEE, APURBA SINHA RAY
Block Development Officer – Appellant
Versus
Surajit Pramanik – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, Ld. AGP., Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra, Adv., Mr. Arka Kr. Nag, Adv., Mr. Amartya Pal, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Subhrajit Saha, Adv., Mr. Sayan Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Sandipan Das, Adv., Mr. Omar Faruk Gazi, Adv., Mr. P. Karan, Adv., Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Sandipan Das, Adv., Mr. Badrul Karim, Adv., Mr. Kiron Sk, Adv., Mr. Indranil Munshi, Adv.
For West Bengal State Election Commission : Ms. Sonal Sinha, Adv., Mr. Tarun Kumar Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Sujit Gupta, Adv., Mr. Sayan Datta, Adv., Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, Adv.
Learned Junior Standing Counsel : Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Ld. Jr. St. Counsel.
For Proforma State Respondents: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Ganguly, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay, Adv., Ms. Lipika Chatterjee, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

(Arijit Banerjee, J.)

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated August 3, 2023, passed on a writ petition filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein being WPA 15705 of 2023. The writ petition is still pending before the learned Single Judge.

2. The respondent no. 1 herein aspired to contest the Panchayat General Elections, 2023, in the State of West Bengal. He filed his nomination papers. His nomination was rejected on the alleged ground of mis-match of the electoral data of his proposer as mentioned in the nomination papers.

3. Being aggrieved, the respondent no. 1 (herein after referred to as ‘Surajit’) approached a learned Judge of this Court by filing the present writ petition. Surajit alleged that his nomination papers had been tampered with by the Panchayat Returning Officer (in short ‘PRO’).

4. On behalf of the PRO it was submitted that prior to rejection of Surajit’s nomination, an opportunity of hearing was granted to him as well to as his proposer. None responded when their names were announced calling then for a hearing. Scrutiny of the nomination papers was carried out strictly following the relevant rules and according to the pre-announced

                  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 telegram-icon
                  whatsapp-icon Back to top