Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Padma Rani Gharami vs The West Bengal State Election ... on 28 June, 2019
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
1
28.06.2019
S/L No.2
Court No.37
(gc)
W.P. 9595 (W) of 2018
Smt. Padma Rani Gharami
Vs.
The West Bengal State Election Commission & Ors.
Mr. Uday Chandra Jha
Mrs. Maheswari Sharma
Mrs. Tulika Roy
... for the petitioner.
Mr. N.C. Bihani
Mrs. Papiya Banerjee Bihani,
Ms. Namrata Boxi,
...for the West Bengal State
Election Commission.
Mr. Dipayan Choudhury,
Mr. Suvrodal Choudhury,
Mr. Souma Bhattacharya,
Mrs. Priyanka Chowdhury,
...for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Sarathi Dasgupta, Mr. Apalak Basu, ...for the Respondent No.3.
The Chief Electoral Officer is represented by Mr. Dipayan Choudhury, Advocate.
Mr. Choudhury has referred to Sections 19 and 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Rule 32 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and submits that on the basis of the documents produced before the Chief Electoral 2 Officer, the Voter Identity Card was issued in favour of the private respondent.
Mr. Choudhury also submits that under Rule 32 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the authenticated printed copy roll is retained at least one year after such publication and all other papers relating to the revision of the roll are retained at least for three years after completion of next intensive revision or summary revision as the case may be. At the time when the Chief Electoral Officer was directed to make enquiry, the record for the said period was not available and, accordingly, it is not possible for the said authority to come to a finding that the Voter Identity Card was obtained by misdeclaration in the year 2011.
The documents disclosed by the Chief Electoral Officer in the affidavit-in-opposition show documents of 2015 and for subsequent period in the name of the private respondents matching with the address shown in the earlier Voter Identity Card. It is not possible on the basis of the materials on record to establish today that in 2011, the Voter Identity Card was obtained by misdeclaration.
On such consideration, I do not find any infirmity in the findings arrived at by the Chief Electoral Officer. It appears that the Chief Electoral Officer has considered the representations in 3 the light of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse.
On such consideration, the writ application being W.P. 9595 (W) of 2018 fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Soumen Sen, J.)