##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya WPA 31433 of 2026 Dipu Das Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Senior Adv.

Mr. Samim Ahammed, Mr. Ambiya Khatun, Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Mr. Asif Ikbal Baidya ….. advocates For the State Election Commission : Ms. Sonal Sinha, Mr. Sandipan Das …… advocates For the KMC : Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, A.G. Sr. Adv Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee …… advocates For the State : Mr. D.N. Roy, Ld. G.P.

Ms. Aparna Banerjee, Mr. Anindya Basu, Mr. Bikash Kumar Sriwastav …… advocates Heard on : 28.10.2026 Order passed on : 29.10.2026 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an individual residing within the limits of Kolkata Municipal Corporation seeking a declaration that entire exercise of determination of the number of wards of Kolkata Municipal Corporation is void; for quashing of the Notification dated 11.09.2026 substituting Schedule II of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980; for prohibiting the 6th respondent from determining the reservation of wards and for other reliefs.

2. Petitioner also prayed for an interim order of stay of operation of the Notification dated 11.09.2026 and to restrain the 6^th respondent from issuing any notification calling an election to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on the basis of Schedule II as notified vide Notification dated

11.09.2026.

3. Petitioner has challenged the Notification dated 11.09.2026 whereby the municipal area as specified in the Schedule to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (for short “the 1980 Act”) has been divided into 209 wards in place of the existing 144 wards.

4. Petitioner alleges that the delimitation exercise has been undertaken on the basis of electoral rolls instead of the actual population thereby excluding a substantial number of residents from consideration. Petitioner states that the boundaries of the wards have been drawn without considering geographical contiguity, compactness and administrative convenience. Such delimitation exercise was undertaken upon being influenced by previous electoral results with the mala fide intention of securing partisan advantage of the ruling political party. It also resulted in unequal municipal representation.

5. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the writ petition contended that the delimitation exercise appears to have been initiated on the recommendation received from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (for short “KMC”). He further contended that such exercise lacks the basic foundation as no recommendation could have been made by KMC after dissolution of the Corporation. He placed reliance upon the provisions of Sections 117 and 118 of the 1980 Act in support of his contention as to the effect and consequences of such dissolution. Mr. Bhattacharya contended that the Corporation consists of the elected councillors as per Section 5 of the 1980 Act and after dissolution of the Corporation, the Municipal Commissioner, who is only an Officer of the Corporation under Section 14 cannot make any recommendation for delimitation. He contended that in the absence of any valid recommendation by the KMC, the State Government could not have exercised power to amend Schedule II of the 1980 Act. Mr. Bhattacharya referred to various documents, charts etc. in course of his argument in support of his contention that the delimitation exercise undertaken by the State Government in the instant case is a typical case of “gerrymandering” in order to give an unfair advantage to the party in power by manipulating the constituencies. In support of such contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Devilal reported at (1986) 1 SCC 657.

6. Learned Advocate General representi