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 constitutional bars.

JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Appellant-West Bengal State Election Commission has assailed order dated 14.08.2023 whereby the learned Single Judge held the constitutional bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India as well as Section 80 of the West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2003?) do not apply and the writ petition is maintainable.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the appeal is as follows :-

3. The writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein is an unsuccessful candidate in the Panchayat election held in the year 2023. He has alleged there was widespread manipulation and tampering of ballot papers, removal of ballot papers and issuance of fake identity cards in favour of a political party viz. All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) enabling tampering of ballots in the strong room/counting centre. Alleging these facts the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein approached the writ court praying for the following reliefs :-

(a) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities their men, agents and subordinates to conduct repolling in respect of the booth mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the instant writ application;

(b) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities their men, agents and subordinates to preserve the CCTV footages and ballot papers with regard to the booth mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the instant writ application;

(c) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities their men, agents and subordinates to provide protection to the petitioner and the election agents to ensure they can go back to their residence safely and further ensuring their lives are not in danger;

(d) A writ in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to produce all relevant records before the Hon?ble Court for proper adjudication;

(e) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a) to (c) above;

(f) An ad-interim order to preserve the CCTV footages and ballot papers with regard to the booth mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the instant writ application within Mekhliganj Block, till the disposal of the instant writ application;

(g) Such other or further order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

4. Respondents in the writ petition referring to Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Section 80 of the Act of 2003 challenged the maintainability of the writ petition.

5. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, inter alia, held that no election had been called in question and therefore, the aforesaid embargo does not apply. By the selfsame order the learned Judge directed the Returning Officer to preserve the CCTV footages in the polling booths, strong rooms and counting centres and to produce the footages before the court.

6. Mr. Amales Roy, learned Advocate for the appellant-West Bengal State Election Commission submits the learned Judge misdirected himself in coming to the conclusion that the election process had not been challenged. Pointing to prayer (a) in the writ petition he strongly contended the unsuccessful candidates had sought for repoll which is in the nature of an election dispute amenable within the scope of Section 93 of the Act of 2003. He relied on various authorities of the Apex Court as well as this court in support of the proposition that the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition in view of the alternative statutory remedy.

7. Per contra, Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein contends there was widespread manipulation, tampering of ballot papers, removal of ballot papers and pilferage of ballot papers in the strong room and counting centres which rendered the election a mockery. Free and fair election is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and the learned Single Judge invoked his constitutional powers to uphold the rule of law. Existence of an alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar which would render