Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sourodip Ghosh & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 January, 2017
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
18.01.2017
S.L.-43(KB)
W.P. No. 1246 (W) of 2017
Sourodip Ghosh & Ors.
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya
Mr. Shuvro Lahiri
Mr. Arnab Neogi
... For the petitioner.
Mr. L. K. Gupta
Mr. Joyotosh Majumder
Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick
... For the State respondents.
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra Mr. S. Mukherjee Mr. Abhijit Sarhan ... For the respondent no.4.
Ms. Shampa Sarkar ... For the University.
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya Mr. Ratul Biswas ... For the respondent no.3.
At the heart of this writ petition is the complaint of the writ petitioners of being deprived from submitting their nomination forms for the College Students Union election scheduled for 19th January, 2017.
2Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya, Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners argues that the writ petitioners were not permitted to submit their nomination forms on the date fixed, i.e. 9th January, 2017 and, therefore had to submit several representations to the concerned State respondents seeking postponement of the election to a date when they will be permitted to participate in the electoral process.
Sri Bhattacharya submits that for a total of 45 seats there are at present only 45 nomination forms which have been received.
Mr. L. K. Gupta, Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State respondents, argues that the writ petition is not maintainable since it does not carry a statutory flavour. Sri Gupta submits that the Students Union Election to a College is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
On behalf of the Respondent/Governing Body of the College, Sri Abhrajit Mitra, Learned Senior Counsel appears and furnishes documents before this Court to show that the election process commenced in December, 2016 and, the time table for the College 3 Students Union Election for 2016-17 was notified by the Principal of the College on the 2nd of January, 2017. Such time table was to the knowledge of all and an Election Commission was constituted for the said Students Union comprising of several staff members of the College.
On behalf of the Respondents/University, Ms. Shampa Sarkar, Learned Counsel appears and submits that the College is in receipt of advisories for conducting the College Students Union Elections and, according to such advisories, steps have been taken for notifying the election inviting nomination forms and the rest.
On behalf of the Respondents/College, Sri Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Learned Counsel appears with Sri Ratul Biswas, Learned Advocate.
Sri Vaisya points out that the College Authority faithfully followed the norms of the electoral process applicable from time to time and, produces documents supporting the fact that a total of 57 nominations were received out of which three were found to be invalid and, therefore a total of 54 valid nominations for 45 Students Union seats stood 4 Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is not ad idem at this stage with learned State counsel that the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction for agitating his present grievances. This Court, on the basis of recent judicial authority, is of the prima facie view that the writ jurisdiction can be invoked by the Court in the event a public law element is involved. Such public law element read in the background of an exercise to conduct a franchise with the assistance of public administrative authorities, part of whom have issued advisories from time to time, alleged malafide in such electoral exercise can be the subject of consideration by a Writ Court on appropriate facts.
However, on the basis of overwhelming factual evidence produced by learned counsel for the Governing Body and the Principal of the College as well as the University showing that the electoral process started in December, 2016 and, its subsequent stages being regularly notified from time to time, it does not stand to reason that at the penultimate hour the writ petitioners, who claim to be students and, have not satisfied the conscience of this Court with solid contra evidence, can 5 be permitted the indulgence of stalling an electoral process in motion.
Accordingly, no interim relief can be extended to the writ petitioners.
Respondents, if advised, are permitted to pen their stand on affidavits to be filed within a period of five weeks from date; reply, within two weeks, if advised.
(Subrata Talukdar,J.)