Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pijush Banerjee & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 April, 2025
11.04.2025
Item Nos.
AD 12
Saswata
WPA 7112 of 2025
Pijush Banerjee & Ors.
versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty
Mr. Snehasish Dey
...For the petitioners
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag
..For the Election Commission
Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sanjukta Dutta
...For the respondent no. 10
Mr. Joydip Kar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vivekananda Bose Mr. Pritam Basu Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh ...For the respondent no. 13
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for cancellation and / or setting aside of the revised election schedule published on 17th March 2024.
3. It would appear from the record that this Court after hearing Mr. Majumder, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the instant writ petition and the learned advocates appearing for the respondents on 3rd April, 2024, had directed the respondent no. 8 being the Cooperative Election Commission to file a report in the form of an affidavit disclosing the development subsequent to publication of the election schedule by the Assistant Returning Officer.
4. The respondent no. 8 has since filed the report in the form of an affidavit which has been taken on record.
5. Today Mr. Majumder, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has once against reiterated that 2 in the instant case there has been no publication of the draft voter list and the final voter list. The voter list was not put up in the notice board of all the branches of CESC limited. Despite there being serious complaints as regards the members of the society being prevented from filing nominations, such complaints were not adhered to. He has drawn attention of this Court to the report filed by the respondent no. 8 and has attempted to make out a case that the aforesaid election process stands vitiated. In support of his contention that the voter list was required to be published at each of the branch offices of CESC limited, he has placed reliance on the provisions of West Bengal Cooperative Election Commission Regulations, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Regulations").
6. In the facts of the instant case, he prays for an interim order, so as to arrest the election process till the anomalies are rectified.
7. Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 13 submits that no proper verification of the voter list has been conducted. He has, however, been candid is submitting that his only interest is in ensuring free and fair election and the respondent no.13 remains functional and undisrupted.
8. Mr. Soumya Majumder, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 10, submits that at present there are more than five thousand members of the cooperative society and from the publication of the voter list, all members are found to be eligible. According to him, there is no irregularity in the election process. Insofar as notifying the voter list in the branch offices of the CESC 3 limited is concerned, he submits by placing reliance on the provisions of Regulation 3 (7) of the said Regulations that ordinarily the list is to be published by affixing the same to the notice board at the Head Office of the Cooperative Society which in this case has admittedly been done. He submits that the branches referred to therein are in relation to the cooperative society and not in relation to the CESC Limited. According to him, the Election Commission did not act in derogation of the said Regulation. There is no irregularity in the election process. Any interim order at this stage would derail the election. No interference is called for.
9. Mr. Nag, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Commission submits that steps taken by the Commission are in accordance with the procedure laid down. He submits that the complaints made by Mr. Majumder's client in the writ petition as regards some of the petitioners being threatened by goons are not within the jurisdiction of the Commission to decide. According to him the Commission has no jurisdiction in enforcement of general law and order that too outside the secured CESC premises. Having regard thereto, no action could be taken.
10. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.
11. Admittedly in this case, an election process appears to have been initiated. From the disclosure made by the Commission as appearing at page 115 of the report it would transpire that the election process has proceeded till the stage of publication of final list of valid candidates after 4 withdrawal. The schedule of election is extracted hereinbelow:
Sl. Particulars Date Time Place Authorised No. person 1 Publication of 17.03.2025 2 pm At the registered A.R.O. Final Voter-List office of the with delimitation Society 2 Distribution and 21.03.2025, 12 Noon to 5 At the registered A.R.O. submission of 24.03.2025 pm office of the Nomination & Society Papers 25.03.2025 3 Scrutiny of 27.03.2025 1 pm to 3 At the registered A.R.O Nomination pm office of the Papers Society 4 Publication of 27.03.2025 Immediately At the registered A.R.O list of Valid after the office of the Nominations scrutiny Society 5 Last date of 28.03.2025 Upto 3 pm At the registered A.R.O withdrawal of office of the Nomination Society Papers 6 Final list of Valid 28.03.2025 After 3 pm At the registered A.R.O Candidates after office of the withdrawal Society 7 Election to the 17.04.2025 7 am to 4 pm Detailed list of ARO and Member venues annexed Polling Delegates with this notice personnels marked as Delimitation list of the Society 8 Publication of 17.04.2025 After At the registered A.R.O the result of completion office of the Election of counting Society ballot papers
12. It also transpires that out of 27 delegates, 15 nominations for the delegates remain uncontested. The Election Commission has been categorical that in terms of election process already held, 15 delegates remain uncontested and election shall be held in respect of 12 delegates. Although, Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, learned Senior Advocate by placing reliance on the provisions of the said Regulations, has submitted that it was obligatory for the respondent no. 8 to publish the voter list in notice board not only at the head office of the CESC Limited but 5 also at the branches of the CESC limited, though, no material has been placed before this Court as regards existence of branch offices, however, having regard to the provisions contained in Regulation 3(7) of the said Regulations thereof, it would transpire that the procedure for publication of the list has been provided in the manner by affixation of the same to the notice board at the Head Office of the cooperative society and all its branches and other places. As would appear from the submissions made by the parties, the cooperative society does not have any other branch. Reference to all its branches in Regulation 3(7) of the said Regulations in my view, pertains to the cooperative society and having regard thereto, I am of the view that non-publication of voter list in the notice board of the various branches of the CESC limited does not and cannot be said to be an infraction within the meaning of the said Regulation.
13. This apart, there is another aspect of the matter. The present writ petition has been filed only by 6 several petitioners who claim to be members of the cooperative society. The petition has not been filed in representative capacity. No leave has been sought to file the same as such. From the documents on record, it would transpire that a list of 5350 members has been published. No other member apart from the petitioners have come forward. It must be borne in mind that the last election of the cooperative society had been held in the year 2008. Having regard to the disclosure made by the respondent no. 8, in the year 2012 after the term of the board expired a Special Officer 6 was appointed who was later substituted by a nominated board, nominated by the State of West Bengal.
14. Having regard thereto, and considering the peculiar facts noted hereinabove, in my view, it shall not be prudent at this stage to stall the election process, the election may go on. However, I am of the view that a limited protection should be afforded to the petitioners to test out the case made out in the petition at the final hearing.
15. In view thereof, the results of the election, to be declared by Commission, shall abide by the result of the writ petition.
16. Let affidavit in opposition be filed within a period of two weeks from date. Reply, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.
17. Liberty to mention immediately upon expiry of the period for filing of affidavits.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)