Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Niamat Sk vs The Principal on 8 January, 2015
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
11 08.1.15
Sc W. P. No. 466 (W) OF 2015
------------
Niamat Sk.
-vs.-
The Principal, Rampurhat College & Ors.
Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee.
........ For the Petitioner.
Mr. Subhabrata Dutta Mr. Sankar Prasad Dalapati.
....... For the State.
Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty Ms. Tanusree Das.
.......For the Respondents No. 2 & 3.
Mr. Robiul Islam Mr. Bitasok Banerjee.
......For the Respondent No.4.
The petitioner is a student of Rampurhat College (hereafter the college), which is affiliated to the University of Burdwan (hereafter the university). He intended to contest the Students' Union election, 2014-2015 (hereafter the election) of the college but was prevented by unlawful elements from collecting the nomination form. It is his further allegation that complaints were lodged with the police as well as the Principal of the college seeking intervention but since no positive result yielded, he has presented this writ petition seeking, inter alia, order on the respondents to furnish him nomination form so as to enable him contest the election scheduled to be held on 8th January, 2015.
I am not persuaded to follow the course of action directed by coordinate Benches of this Court while hearing W.P. No.2702 (W) of 2014 and W.P. 2519 (W) of 2014 on the ground that there are distinct factual dissimilarities. 2 Insofar as the former writ petition is concerned, there was a video clipping whereas in the latter writ petition there was a contemporaneous report of the concerned Block Development Officer, which supported the respective claims of the petitioners and were considered by the learned Judges.
In this writ petition, apart from the allegations levelled by the petitioner, there are no supporting evidence of the nature which were placed before the coordinate Benches while the said two writ petitions had been considered. Similar orders passed on such writ petitions, as prayed for by Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the petitioner cannot be passed on this writ petition.
It was also brought to my notice by Mr. Mukherjee that the order passed on W.P. No.2702 (W) of 2014 had been affirmed by the Division Bench while disposing of MAT 1467 of 2014. It appears on perusal of the order passed thereon that the appellants had filed an application for addition of parties before the learned Judge but did not take steps for their impleadment. It is for such reason that leave to file appeal was refused and, therefore, the Division Bench did not have the occasion to consider the appeal on merits. The said decision does not come to the rescue of Mr. Mukherjee.
The procedure for conducting students' union election is provided for in the The University Regulations relating to Constitution and Function of the Students' Union of the Affiliated Colleges (other than Government Colleges and the 3 Colleges imparting instructions in Engineering and Technology and Medicine), framed by the university. Regulation 23 provides the procedure for the election and sub-regulation (4) thereof provides that the Election Commission, constituted in terms of sub-regulation (1), would be responsible for the proper conduct of the election and resolution of dispute, if any, regarding the holding of election by taking appropriate action as it may deem fit and proper.
In my view, the petitioner having complained to the Principal of the college, who is also the Chairman of the Election Commission (hereafter the commission), to the effect that he could not collect the nomination form, the complaint ought to have been considered and a decision given thereon; to the extent of not deciding the complaint of the petitioner, the commission must be held to be remiss. However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the election has been conducted in terms of the schedule of the programme for holding election today and that the office bearers' election is scheduled to be held on 12th January, 2015. In such view of the matter, interest of justice would be best served if the commission decides the complaint of the petitioner as early as possible but not later than a week from date of communication of this order. It is ordered accordingly.
It is made clear that election of candidates to comprise the students' union and election of office bearers' shall abide by the result of the decision to be given by the commission in terms of this order.
4
The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order for costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.
(Dipankar Datta,J.)