Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Soumendu Adhikari vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 January, 2021
06.01.2021
3
RP Ct.04
WPA 11981 of 2020
Soumendu Adhikari
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, sr. adv.
Mr. Billawadal Bhattacharya
Mr. Rajdeep Majumder
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee
.... For petitioner
Mr. Saptangsu Basu, sr. adv.
Mr. Atarup Banerjee
Mr. Abu Sohail
.... For the Municipality
Mr. Kishore Dutta, sr. adv., Ld. AG
Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Ld. AAG
Mr. Sayan Sinha
.... For State
Mr. N. C. Bihani
Ms. Papiya Banerjee Bihani
Mr. Soumyajit Ghosh
.... For Election Commission
Mr. Dutta, learned senior advocate, Advocate General
continues with his argument on behalf of State. He relies
on several paragraphs in B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India
[(2010) 3 SCC 331]. For facts of the case he relies on
paragraphs 1 and 2. He submits, this was a case relating
to removal of Governors on change of dispensation at the
Centre. Then he relies on, inter alia, paragraphs 70, 82-
83. He submits, there is clear distinction made between
several constitutional offices, to which the doctrine of
pleasure applies without restriction. Supreme Court in the
judgement had made categories of offices, to which the
doctrine of pleasure applies without restriction, with
restriction and to those offices, where the doctrine of
pleasure does not apply at all. The Supreme Court went on
2
to also say that the categories cannot be mixed up. He lays
special emphasis on the offices, in which personnel were
hand-picked by the Prime Minister, as referred to in the
judgment, in contrast with the person appointed as
Governor. A sentence from paragraph 80 is quoted below.
".......As a result, the judicial review of withdrawal of
pleasure, is limited in the case of a Governor whereas
virtually nil in the case of a Minister or an Attorney
General."
According to him, doctrine of pleasure application on
designation made by State Government of administrator(s)
to run the Municipality, on the term of councillors having
expired in terms of section 14(2), is immune from judicial
review and B.P. Singhal (supra) is not applicable to allow
for it. Mr. Dutta wants direction for affidavits as, he
submits, serious allegations have been made and are to be
dealt with by his client.
Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate wants to be heard
on the question of maintainability.
On query from Court Mr. Bhattacharya, learned
senior advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner submits,
ratio in B.P. Singhal (supra) is that there will be judicial
review of administrative action in applying the doctrine of
pleasure, admittedly having been applied to remove his
client from continuing to act as administrator. In the
judgment several possible reasons have been considered.
State has to give its reason to Court.
Paragraph 15 in B.P. Singhal (supra) is noticed and
set out below.
3
"15. The petitioner has no locus to maintain the
petition in regard to the prayers claiming relief
for the benefit of the individual Governors. At all
events, such prayers no longer survive on
account of passage of time. However, with
regard to the general question of public
importance referred to the Constitution Bench,
touching upon the scope of Article 156(1) and
the limitations upon the doctrine of pleasure, the
petitioner has the necessary locus".
On query from Court Mr. Bihani, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the Election Commission submits,
Election Commission of India is settling the electoral rolls.
In pending litigation before the Supreme Court, his client
has indicated that election to the municipalities depends
on adoption of yet to be notified electoral rolls and no time
frame can be indicated at present.
Court will decide this writ petition on affidavits.
Respondents may file affidavit-in-opposition, copies to be
served on petitioner by 15th March, 2021. Petitioner may
use reply on advance copy served. Affidavits will be
accepted on adjourned date.
List on 21.01.2021 under same heading marked at 2
P.M.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)
