Calcutta High Court
Mainak Goswami & Anr vs The State Of West Gengal & Ors on 17 June, 2025
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE/ORIGINAL SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury
WPA 12614 of 2025
Mainak Goswami & Anr.
Versus
The State of West Gengal & Ors.
With
WPO 417 of 2025
Sagar Prasad & Anr.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioners in : Mr. Srinjay Sengupta, Adv.
WPA 12614 of 2025 Mr. Saurav Roy, Adv.
Mr. A. Ghosh, Adv.
For the Petitioners in : Mr. Milon Kumar Bhattacharya,
WPO 417 of 2025 Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri, Adv.
Mr. N. Roy, Adv.
Mr. Pradipta Siddhanta, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Jahar Lal De, AGP
Mr. Parikshit Goswami, Adv.
For the Cooperative Election : Mr. Srijan Nayak, Adv.
Commission Mrs. Rituparna Maitra, Adv.
For the respondent no. 3 in : Mr. Ankit Sureka, Adv.
WPA 12614 of 2025 & Mr. Biplob Das, Adv.
WPO 417 of 2025
For the respondent no. 3 in : Mr. Asis Dutta, Adv.
WPO 417 of 2025
For the respondent no. 3 in : Mr. Partha Sarathi Pal, Adv.
WPA 12614 of 2025
For the Police Authority : Mr. Arindam Mondal, Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
Heard on : 17.06.2025
Judgment on : 17th June, 2025
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.
2. Leave is granted to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
Assistant Returning Officer to file Vakalatnama in the department.
3. Since, both the writ petitions raise common question as regards
fixing of one particular polling station for the purpose of holding
election of Calcutta Tramways Employees Cooperative Credit
Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Cooperative
Society"), the aforesaid writ petitions are taken up for consideration
together and are dealt with by a common order.
4. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are the members of the
Cooperative Society. It is the petitioners' case that the last election
of the Cooperative Society was held on 27th February, 2015. At the
relevant point of time, as per the election schedule published by
the Assistant Returning Officers of the Cooperative Election
Commission it would transpire that there were 25 constituencies
and the number of polling stations were 11. It is the petitioners'
case that on this occasion for the ensuing elections of the delegates
of the Cooperative Society, the election schedule published by the
Assistant Returning Officer on 23rd May, 2025 notifies that the
election shall be at one particular polling station situated at Jogesh
Mime Academy, Padabali, 97B S. P. Mukherjee Road, Kalighat
Park, Kolkata - 700 026. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fixing
of one particular venue/polling station for holding election of the
Cooperative Society. According to the petitioners although,
representations have been made and addressed to the Returning
Officer for providing additional number of polling station, such
request has not been adhered to.
5. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate representing the
petitioners in WPO 417 of 2025 (Original Side) by drawing
attention of this Court to two separate election schedule, one
published in the year 2015 and the other published on 23rd May,
2025 for holding election of delegates which is scheduled to be held
on 22nd June, 2025, would submit that there was no justification
for the Cooperative Election Commission to hold election in one
particular polling station, having regard to the members of
Cooperative Society being attached with the various depots of the
Cooperative Society which are situated all over the city of Kolkata
and the State of West Bengal. According to him, the members
would be severely inconvenienced for travelling to one particular
polling station especially since the nature of the duties of the
members of the Cooperative Society are such that they are also
require to work on holidays as well. He would further submit that
the time provided for holding the election is also inadequate as the
same provides for a small window to the members of the
Cooperative Society to cast their respective votes. It is submitted
that though a representation supported by a total 401 number of
members of the Cooperative Society dated 27th May, 2025 had been
made, no steps have been taken by the Assistant Returning Officer.
This seeks to interfere with the democratic rights of the members
of the Cooperative Society and unless appropriate protection is
afforded by directing the Assistant Returning Officer to provide for
additional polling stations, the petitioner and the members of the
Cooperative Society shall suffer irreparable loss.
6. Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ
petition, being WPA 12614 of 2025 (Appellate Side), while
supporting the submissions of Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior
advocate would submit that the entire process of holding election
at one particular place seeks to interfere with the rights of the
members of the Cooperative Society. This apart, he submits that
taking into consideration the nature of duties allotted to the
members of the Cooperative Society which includes manning
public transport, unless appropriate protection is afforded, it is
more likely than not that the public transport in the city of Kolkata
will be severely affected if the members of the Cooperative Society
have to rush to one particular polling station for casting their votes
on a particular date.
7. Mr. De, learned Additional Government Pleader and senior
advocate, representing the State of West Bengal would submit that
no irregularity has been committed by the Assistant Returning
Officer in deciding the venue for holding election. According to him,
Regulation 3(3)(iv) of the West Bengal Cooperative Election
Commission Regulation, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "said
Regulations") authorizes the Assistant Returning Officer to take a
decision in this regard. Adequate security has been provided for
holding election on the scheduled date. The apprehension of the
petitioners is entirely unfounded.
8. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate representing the Cooperative Election
Commission, West Bengal would at the very outset submit that the
aforesaid writ petitions have been filed only by a handful number
of members of the Cooperative Society. None, apart from the
petitioners have come forward to challenge the decision of the
Assistant Returning Officer in holding election at a particular
polling station. He would submit that there can be no comparison
of the election schedule published in the year 2015 with the one in
the year 2025 since, a sea change has taken place in the number
of member of the Cooperative Society. According to him there
were around 7000 members in the year 2015 which has come
down to about 1097 in 2025. By placing before this Court Rule 31
of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2011 (hereinafter
referred to as the "said Rules") he would submit that the procedure
for determining the number of delegates and segregation of the
constituencies have been provided for and a decision has been taken
on the basis of Rule 31(a) of the said Rules. According to him,
Regulations 3(3)(ii), 3(3)(iii) and 3(3)(iv) authorizes the Returning
Officer not only to make arrangement but also to determine the
venue of polling station and take all steps in accordance with the
election process. According to him, the decision taken by the
Assistant Returning Officer ordinarily cannot be the subject matter
of scrutiny before this Court and in support thereof, he has relied
on an unreported judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in the case of The Secretary, West Bengal
Co-operative Election Commission vs. The Commissioner, West
Bengal Co-operative Election Commission & Ors., in MAT 339
of 2017 with CAN 2416 of 2017 on 10th April, 2017. He has also
relied on an unreported judgment delivered by this Court in the
case of Sanjay Ghosahal @ Sanjay Ghosal & Ors. vs. State of
West Bengal & Ors. in WPA 8928 of 2025 on 24th April, 2025.
Having regard thereto, he submits that no interference is called for.
9. Mr. Sureka, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Assistant
Returning Officer and supports the contention of Mr. Nayak. He
submits that the decision to hold election has been taken solely on
the basis of the number of members of the Cooperative Society and
as such no interference is called for. In addition thereto, in order to
justify as to why election has not taken place in the respective
depots of the Calcutta Tramways Corporation, he has relied on the
notice dated 27th March, 2018 issued by the Managing Director of
the West Bengal Tramways Corporation Limited. Let a copy of the
aforesaid document be retained with the records.
10. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
and considered the materials on record. Prima facie, it would
transpire that the last election of the Cooperative Society was held
on 27th February, 2015. From the election schedule published by
the Assistant Returning Officers on 1st February, 2015, it would
transpire that the total number of delegates to be elected were 25,
whereas the total number of voters who were required to cast their
votes were 5308. It would further transpire from the election
schedule that a total number of 11 polling stations were provided
for. To morefully appreciate the above, the relevant election
schedule is extracted hereinbelow:
11. It is a matter of record that on 23rd May, 2025 the Assistant
Returning Officer has published the election schedule for the
ensuing election of delegates. As per the election schedule the date
for holding election is fixed on 22nd June, 2025 and the time for
casting votes is between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. While the only
polling station as indicated has already been noted hereinabove.
Although, a lot of stress has been placed by both Mr. Nayak and
Mr. Sureka learned advocates representing the Cooperative
Election Commission and the Assistant Returning Officer as
regards the number of voters to cast their votes, the aforesaid
schedule is conspicuously silent regarding the number of voters
who are required to cast their votes. To appropriately appreciate
the above, the relevant portion of the aforesaid schedule is
extracted hereinbelow:
12. On a comparison of both the aforesaid schedules, it would
demonstrate that although, in the year 2015 there were 25
numbers of constituencies/delegates to be elected, on this occasion
the number of delegates have been increased to 44. In order to
justify a particular polling station/fixing the venue for holding
election, the stand taken by the Cooperative Election Commission
and by the Assistant Returning Officer are, however, different.
While on behalf of the Cooperative Election Commission it has
been stated that in order to accommodate all the voters, the
election has been proposed to be held on a holiday. The Assistant
Returning Officer would, however, submit that the decision to hold
the election at a particular venue has been influenced by the
number of members of the said Society. Even if the contention of
the Assistant Returning Officer is accepted it may at best appear
that the number of voters is 1097. It is, however, an admitted
position that the members of the Cooperative Society are attached
with the various depots of the Cooperative Society and are
discharging their duties for the transport department. Contrary to
the submissions made by Mr. Nayak, ordinarily transport services
are provided even on holidays. Having regard thereto, fixing one
particular venue on a holiday so as to justify the same does not
appear to be reasonable.
13. Be that as it may, I however notice that Regulations 3(3)(ii), 3(3)(iii)
and 3(3)(iv) in particular provides for general duties of the
Returning Officer which include fixing the election schedule and
making arrangements for the polling station/s. Having regard
thereto and in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary, West Bengal
Cooperative Election Commission (supra) it is true that
ordinarily the discretion exercised by the Assistant Returning
Officer are not to be interfered with. But peculiar facts required
peculiar consideration.
14. Admittedly, in this case on the previous occasion in the year 2015
the election was spread out all over the city of Kolkata in 11
numbers of polling stations. Although the voters have come down
by 1/5th of the same, however, in my view the same cannot justify
holding of election in a particular venue that too between 10.00
a.m. to 2.00 p.m. when most of the members of the Cooperative
Society would be discharging their duties. This apart, admittedly
the number of delegates from the previous election has almost
doubled. Though there may be variation in the number of voters,
the same may not also justify holding of election at a particular
venue.
15. The decision taken by the Assistant Returning Officer though
discretionary, however, the same cannot stand in the way of this
Hon'ble Court exercising jurisdiction especially when the Hon'ble Court
is of the view that the decision taken was so absurd that no man of
ordinary prudence would accept the same. The above decision of
the Assistant Returning Officer appears to be in conflict with the
principles of Wednesbury's principles of reasonableness. This also
does not appear to be a judicious exercise of discretion by the
Assistant Returning Officer. The judgement delivered in the case of
Secretary, West Bengal Co-operative Election Commission
(supra) was delivered in a different set of facts wherein the primary
question that fell for consideration was whether the Assistant
Returning Officer was bound to provide reasons for changing the
venue of election from factory premises to an educational
institution though such change was necessitated for ensuring
neutrality and fairness. It is in that context, the Division Bench of
this Hon'ble Court had held that it was the prerogative of the
Assistant Returning Officer to decide the venue for holding the
election and he was not under any obligation to provide reasons.
Such is not the case here. The discretion exercised by the Assistant
Retuning officer in determining to hold election in one particular
polling station in the facts of the case does not appear to be a
judicious exercise of discretion.
16. Having regard thereto, I have no doubt in my mind that the
decision to hold election in one particular polling station that too
between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. appears to be wholly irrational
and unjustified.
17. In view thereof, I direct the Assistant Returning Officer to forthwith
reconsider the above issue especially having regard to the election
schedule published by the Assistant Returning Officer in the year
2015 and to provide for at least 5 (five) numbers of polling stations
all over the city of Kolkata.
18. Such reschedule venue must be published on/or before 20th June,
2025. Since, the State authorities are represented I direct the Joint
Commissioner of Police, Headquarter, to provide adequate police
protection for the purpose of holding election at the respective
venues to be notified by the Assistant Returning Officer.
19. Before parting, I must note that although the respondents had
raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petition on the
ground that the writ petition was filed by only individual writ
petitioners, I, however, notice that the writ petition in the Original
Side is supported by at least 401 members of the Cooperative
Society whose signature are annexed with the representation
addressed to the Returning Officer, which representation has not
been considered. As such there is no merit in such objection.
20. Since nothing survives in the writ petitions, the writ petitions are
accordingly disposed of.
21. All parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite
formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
