Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, APURBA SINHA RAY, JJ.
The Block Development Officer & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Surajit Pramanik & Ors. – Respondents
M.A.T. 1654 of 2023 with IA CAN 1 of 2023
Decided On : 10-04-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 243-O - West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act, 2003 - Writ petition challenging rejection of nomination papers - The court held that the rejection of nomination papers gives rise to an election dispute, which can only be resolved through an election petition as per the provisions of the Act. The court emphasized that judicial review in election matters is discretionary and should not interfere with the election process unless absolutely necessary. (Paras 27-34)
(B) Election Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - The court ruled that the High Court should refrain from entertaining writ petitions regarding election disputes, particularly concerning the rejection of nomination papers, as such matters must be addressed post-election through the appropriate statutory remedies. (Paras 22-26)
Facts of the case:
The respondent's nomination for the Panchayat elections was rejected on grounds of alleged tampering, leading to a writ petition being filed. The court directed an inquiry into the allegations against the Block Development Officer.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, affirming that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of nomination papers could be challenged through a writ petition or if it must be addressed through an election petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of nomination papers constitutes an election dispute, which must be resolved through an election petition as per the statutory provisions, emphasizing the need for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
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 schedule. In course of doing so, if any confusion/defect/mis-match was noticed, the concerned candidate or his representative was duly informed and consulted and only then a decision was taken. In the concerned Block, out of 586 nominations, only 7 were rejected. It was submitted that had the decisions of rejection been motivated, the figure of rejection would have been much higher.
5. On behalf of Surajit and his proposer it was submitted that they left after filing the nomination papers since they were told that the papers were in order and their further presence was not required. Hence, when their names were called on for hearing, nobody responded. It was submitted that Surajit’s nomination papers were tampered with and rejected to enable his rival candidate to be elected un-opposed. The writ petitioners prayed for, inter alia, the following reliefs:-
(ii) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the concerned authority to allow the petitioner no. 1 to contest the Panchayat election in accordance with law.
(iii) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Police Authorities to register FIR in respect of the representation dated 19.06.2023.
(iv) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the BDO/PRO to produce all the relevant documents before this Hon’ble Court.
(v) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit the entire records of the case to this Hon’ble Court so that conscionable justice may be done.
6. On behalf of the State it was submitted that the election is long over, the result has been declared and at this stage Surajit’s only remedy is to file an election petition.
7. The learned Judge passed the order impugned in this appeal, the relevant portions whereof read as follows:-
The thumb rule for conducting an election is that the same should be absolutely free and fair. Occasion should not arise that either the contestant or the elector alleges any illegality or unfair practice in the election process.
In the present case, allegation has been made against the Block Development Officer, who is responsible for acting as the Panchayat Returning Officer, for tampering the nomination paper of a prospective candidate.
…..
The police appears to have addressed the issue in a different manner altogether. The petitioner never alleged that he was obstructed from filing the nomination paper. The petitioner neither alleged that there was any violence at the time of filing the nomination paper.
………
The allegation of tampering brought against a responsible officer of the State if left unattended then the general public will lose their faith and confidence upon the pub
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.
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.
Election disputes must be addressed through statutory remedies, and writ petitions are not maintainable when an alternative remedy exists under the relevant election laws.
Election – Rejected nomination paper - Maintainability of Petition - Petition would not be maintainable against an order rejecting a nomination paper - Section 15 confers very wide powers on trial Ju....
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....
The court reiterated the principles of non-interference in the election process by the courts, the requirement to exhaust the remedy of filing election petitions for challenging the validity of elect....
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
