A division bench of the Calcutta High Court adjourned a public interest litigation (PIL) regarding 274 uncontested seats in the West Bengal Panchayat polls. The adjournment came after the court learned that an identical petition had been filed by a political candidate before a single-judge bench.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, had previously sought the response of the State Election Commission (SEC) in the matter. The petitioner claimed that their rights as a voter were being affected as only candidates from the ruling party were contesting in all 274 seats in a specific block.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay contested the petitioner's right to file the petition, pointing out that it was a copy-paste job and an identical petition was already pending before another bench of the High Court, filed by aspiring candidates.
After examining both petitions, the court noted that the averments in both were identical, with even the font being the same. The Chief Justice remarked that there was a serious allegation that the petitioner had filed the petition knowing that another candidate had already done so before a single-judge bench.
The petitioner's counsel denied the allegation, urging the court not to draw such an inference. However, the court decided to wait for the outcome of the pending plea before taking further action. They expressed concern about one litigant filing the same case before two benches, comparing it to protective assessment orders sought in taxation matters.
The matter was adjourned for further consideration, and the Chief Justice suggested that the petitioner's counsel advise their client in the meantime.
The petitioner's plea revolves around 274 seats in a particular block, consisting of 10 gram panchayats, 30 panchayat samitis, and 3 zilla parishads. The State, represented by Senior Advocate Bandyopadhyay, argued that the petitioner's pleadings failed to disclose their identity or even establish if they were a voter as claimed.
Bandyopadhyay further expressed anguish over the manner in which such cases were being argued, emphasizing the need to maintain the dignity and etiquettes of the court.
Meanwhile, the SEC stated that there didn't seem to be any anomaly in the rate of nominations withdrawn during the panchayat polls. They provided details of the nominations and withdrawals in the 274 seats, highlighting that the withdrawal rate this year was lower compared to 2018.
The SEC's counsel also disputed the maintainability of the PIL, asserting that the court should not interfere when the election authorities had control and superintendence over election matters.
During the hearing, concerns were raised on behalf of candidates already declared winners in the 274 seats, and the court suggested that the SEC provide their names on affidavit for them to be impleaded in the PIL.
TAGS: Calcutta High Court division bench public interest litigation (PIL) West Bengal Panchayat polls uncontested seats State Election Commission (SEC) ruling party candidates block identical petition single-judge bench petitioner's entitlement copy-paste work Chief Justice font serious allegation pending plea protective assessment orders petitioner's counsel State representation Senior Advocate identity of the petitioner obstruction of nomination dignity etiquettes SEC's assertion withdrawal of nominations maintainability of PIL election authorities control and superintendence winners of seats impleading affidavit.
