Calcutta High Court
Rekha Patra vs Akhtar Rahman Biswas And Others on 26 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Election Petition Jurisdiction)
ORIIGINAL SIDE
Presents
The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao
G.A. No. 3 of 2025
With
G.A. No. 4 of 2025
In
EP No. 3 of 2024
Rekha Patra
Versus
Akhtar Rahman Biswas and Others
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya
Ms. Rashmi Bothra
Mr. Suryaneel Das
Mr. Adtiya Mondal
Mr. Chranjit Pal
Mr. Tamoghna Pramanick
... For the petitioner.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta
Mr. Shivam Pathak
Mr. Kamran Hussain
... For the respondent no.6 /
petitioner in GA/3/2025.
2
Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumabho Ghose
Mr. Soumava Mukherjee
... For the applicant in GA/4/2025.
Ms. Jayeeta Sinha
Mr. Sandip Mandal
... For the State.
Hearing Concluded On : 18.11.2025
Judgment on : 26.11.2025
Krishna Rao, J.:
1. The respondent no.6 has filed an application being G.A. No. 3 of 2025
for recalling of the order dated 19th December, 2024 and for allowing
the respondent no. 6 to file written statement.
2. One Mr. Tarik Hasan has filed an application being G.A. No. 4 of 2025
for substitution in place of Returned Candidate, namely, Sk. Nurul
Islam and to file written statement.
3. Originally, the petitioner, namely, Smt. Rekha Patra has filed an
Election Petition being E.P. No. 3 of 2024 for declaring the returned
candidate from the 18-Basirhat Parliamentary Constituency of District
North 24 Parganas in the House of the People as void and to set aside.
4. In the Election Petition, the petitioner had made all together 16
respondents including Chief Election Commissioner and Returning
Officer being the respondent nos. 15 and 16. The respondent no.1 is
the returned candidate and the respondent no.2 was the candidate set-
up by the All India Secular Front, the respondent no.3 was the
candidate set-up by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the
respondent nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 13 were independent candidates,
the respondent no. 7 was set-up by the Bahujan Samaj Party, the
respondent nos. 9, 12 and 14 were set-up by the Bharatheeya Jawan
Kisan Party, Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist) and
Mulnibashi Party of India respectively.
5. The Notice of the Election Petition was served upon the respondent no.1
on 8th August, 2024. On 24th September, 2024, the respondent no.1
passed away. The respondent nos. 15 and 16 have entered appearance
and filed their respective written statements. Other respondents inspite
of service of notice of the Election Petition, have not entered
appearance. During pendency of the case, the respondent nos. 15 and
16 have filed an application for deletion of their names from the case
and accordingly by an order dated 13th August, 2025, the name of the
respondent nos. 15 and 16 were deleted from the case.
6. By an order dated 13th August, 2025, this Court directed the petitioner
for taking appropriate steps by publishing in the "Calcutta Gazette" in
compliance of the provisions of Section 116 of the Representation of
Peoples Act, 1951 read with Rule 41 of the Election Petition Rules,
1967 of the High Court at Calcutta. In compliance with the order, the
petitioner has published Gazette on 8th September, 2025. On
publication of Gazette, the respondent no. 6 and one Mr. Tarik Hasan,
applicant herein have filed their respective applications being G.A. No.
3 of 2025 and G.A. No. 4 of 2025.
7. Mr. Bilwadal Bhattacharyya, Learned Senior Advocate representing the
petitioner raised an objection and submits that the applications filed by
the respondent no. 6 and Mr. Tarik Hasan, are barred by limitation. He
submits that as per Section 116 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 and the Rule 41 of the Election Petition Rules, 1967 of the High
Court at Calcutta, provides that within 14 days from the date of
publication, apply to substitute in place of the returned candidate but
both applications have been filed after the period of 14 days. In support
of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of
Election Commission of India Vs. Telangana Rastra Samithi and
Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 370 and submits that the
Representative of the People Act, 1951, is a complete code for the
conduct of elections by the Election Commission of India appointed
under Article 324 of the Constitution of India which provides for
superintendence. He further relied upon the judgment in the case of
Anwari Basavaraj Patil and Others Vs. Siddaramaiah and Others
reported in (1993) 1 SCC 636 and submitted that the applicability of
Section 5 is excluded in the matter of filing of an election petition.
8. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that writ of summons was duly served
upon the respondent no.6 but the respondent no.6 has failed to appear
in the proceeding and accordingly the Election Petition was placed as
"undefended" against the respondent no. 6 and now the respondent
no.6 intends to file written statement which is not permissible under
law.
9. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the respondent no.6 claims
recrimination but the respondent no. 6, is a party to the suit and chose
not to appear and also did not come forward for cross-examine the
petitioner when the suit was at the stage of trial.
10. Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.6
submits that though the respondent no. 6 after receipt of notice of the
election petition has not come forward to contest the same but after the
publication of Official Gazette, a fresh cause of action arose and
accordingly, the respondent no. 6 has filed the present application.
11. Mr. Dutta submits that the Official Gazette was not published in
accordance with law as in the said publication nowhere it is mentioned
that no other respondent is opposing the petition. He submits that by
an order dated 13th August, 2025, this Court directed the petitioner to
take appropriate steps by publishing in the Calcutta Gazette but the
petitioner has not complied with the said order by publishing Gazette in
accordance with Section 116 of the Representation of Peoples Act,
1951.
12. Mr. Dutta relied upon the order passed in EP No. 9 of 2021 dated
22nd February, 2023, in the case of Kalyan Chaubey Vs. Sadhan
Pande and Ors. and submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court
held that the existing non-appearing respondent who can also respond
to a notice under Section 116 of the Representation of Peoples Act,
1951.
13. Mr. Anirban Ray, Learned Senior Advocate representing Mr. Tarik
Hasan, submits that it is mandatory on the part of the petitioner while
publishing the Gazette under Section 116 of the Representation of
People Act, 1951, it is to be mentioned that no other respondent is
opposing the petition but in the publication made by the petitioner, it is
not mentioned. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the
order passed in the case of Yashovardhan Sinha HUF & Anr. Vs.
Satyatej Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. in C.O. No. 4125 of 2023 dated 19th
February, 2024 and submits that the law is settled that ordinary,
when the expression "shall" is used, it is mandatory in nature, but even
after the of expression "shall" if the statute is silent about the
consequences of the non-compliance of such provision, it cannot be
held that the provision is mandatory.
14. Mr. Ray further relied upon the judgment in the case of Union of India
& Ors. Vs. Mahendra Singh passed in Civil Appeal No. 4807 of
2022 dated 25th July, 2022 and submits that where the law
prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a
particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the
provisions of law without deviating from the prescribed procedure.
15. Mr. Ray submits that in the election petition, Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, is applicable. The applicant is the voter of the said Parliamentary
Constituency came to know from the Gazette about the pendency of the
election petition and accordingly appointed an Advocate for taking steps
and had filed the present application. He submits that the applicant
has the personal knowledge that the petitioner at the time of election
has adopted corrupt practice.
16. Mr. Ray submits that inspite of several efforts, the applicant has not
been able to come across any Gazette notification made under Section
116 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The applicant was not
able to get election petition. Learned Advocate for the applicant made
request to the Learned Advocate for the petitioner for supply of copy of
election petition as the department was not accepting the application of
the applicant without full cause title of the case but the same was not
supplied and accordingly the Learned Advocate for the applicant
mentioned the matter before this Court and this Court allowed the
applicant to file application with short cause title, accordingly on 24th
September, 2025, the applicant has filed the present application.
17. Mr. Ray relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Bihar and
Others Vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti reported in
(2018) 9 SCC 472 and submits that where the object of such a
provision is only to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. All
rules of procedure are handmaids of justice and if, in advancing the
cause of justice, it is made clear that such provision should be
construed as directory.
18. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the
materials on record, it is admitted fact that both the applications have
been filed after the period of 14 (fourteen) days prescribed under
Section 116 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Section 116 of
the Representation of People Act, 1951, reads as follows:
"116. Abatement or substitution on death
of respondent.-- If before the conclusion of the
trial of an election petition, the sole respondent dies
or gives notice that he does not intend to oppose
the petition or any of the respondents dies or gives
such notice and there is no other respondent who is
opposing the petition, [the High Court] shall cause
notice of such event to be published in the Official
Gazette, and thereupon any person who might
have been a petitioner may, within fourteen days of
such publication, apply to be substituted in place of
such respondent to oppose the petition, and shall
be entitled to continue the proceedings upon such
terms as [the High Court] may think fit."
19. From the bare reading of the above provision, it is clear that the statue
has prescribed a definite period, that is 14 days of such publication.
The Gazette Notification was published on 8th September, 2025. As per
Section 116 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, "any person
who might have been a petitioner may, within fourteen days of such
publication, apply to be substituted in place of such respondent to oppose
the petition, and shall be entitled to continue proceedings upon such
terms as [the High Court] may think fit". 14 (fourteen) days of such
publication expired on 22nd September, 2025. The respondent no.6 as
well as the applicant has filed the instant application on 24th
September, 2025 that is on 16th day form the date of publication of the
Gazette.
20. The question is, whether the time period of fourteen (14) days is
directory or mandatory. To ascertain the same, it would be appropriate
to see Section 2 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which reads as
follows:
"2. Interpretation. (1) In these rules, unless
the context otherwise requires,-
(a)"Act" means the Representative of the People Act,
1951 (43 of 1951);
(b)"ballot box" includes any box, bag or other
receptacle used for the insertion of ballot paper by
voters;
[(ba) "counterfoil" means the counterfoil
attached to a ballot paper printed under the
provisions of these rules;]
3* * * * *
(c) "election by assembly members" means an
election to the Council of States by the elected
members of the Legislative Assembly of a State by
the members of the electoral college of a Union
territory, or an election to the Legislative Council of
a State by the members of the Legislative Assembly
of that State;
(d) "elector", in relation to an election by
assembly members, means any person entitled to
vote at that election;
(e) "electoral roll", in relation to an election by
assembly members, means the list maintained
under section 152 by the returning officer for that
election;
(f) "electoral roll number" of a person means-
(i) the serial number of the entry in the
electoral roll in respect of that person;
(ii) the serial number of the part of the
electoral roll in which such entry
occurs; and
(iii) the name of the constituency to which
the electoral roll relates;
[(g) "Form" means a Form appended to these rules
and in respect of any election in a State, includes a
translation thereof in any of the languages used for
official purposes of the State;]
[(gg) "marked copy of the electoral roll" means the
copy of the electoral roll set apart for the purpose of
marking the names of electors to whom ballot
papers are issued at an election;]
(h) "polling station", in relation to an election by
assembly members, means the place fixed under
section 29 for taking the poll at that election;
(i)"presiding officer" includes-
(i) any polling officer performing any of the
functions of a presiding officer under
sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of
section 26; and
(ii) any returning officer while presiding over
an election under sub-section (2) of
section 29;
(j) "returning officer" includes any assistant
returning officer performing any function he is
authorised to perform under sub-section (2) of
section 22;
(k) "section" means a section of the Act.
(2) For the purposes of the Act or these rules, a
person who is unable to write his name shall,
unless otherwise expressly provided in these rules,
be deemed to have signed an instrument or other
paper if-
(a) he has placed a mark on such instrument or
other paper in the presence of the returning officer
or the presiding officer or such other officer as may
be specified in this behalf by the Election
Commission, and
(b) such officer on being satisfied as to his
identity has attested the mark as being the mark of
that person.
(3) Any requirement under these rules that a
notification, order, declaration, notice or list issued
or made by any authority shall be published in the
Official Gazette shall, unless otherwise expressly
provided in these rules, be construed as a
requirement that it shall be published in the
Gazette of India if it relates to an election to, or
membership of, either House of Parliament or an
electoral college, and in the Official Gazette of the
State, if it relates to an election to, or membership
of, the House or either House of the State
Legislature.
(4) The General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897)
shall apply for the interpretation of these rules as it
applies for the interpretation of an Act of
Parliament."
21. There is no provision in the Representation of People Act, 1951 or in
the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, for providing extension of time for
filing of different applications under the Act.
22. Section 86(4) and explanation of the Representative of People Act, 1951,
therein reads as follows:
"86. Trial of election petitions.-- (4) Any
candidate not already a respondent shall, upon
application made by him to the High Court within
fourteen days from the date of commencement of
the trial and subject to any order as to security for
costs which may be made by the High Court, be
entitled to be joined as a respondent.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-
section and of section 97, the trial of a petition shall
be deemed to commence on the date fixed for the
respondents to appear before the High Court and
answer the claim or claims made in the petition."
23. In the case State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava reported in
AIR 1957 SC 912, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that whether a
statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the
Legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed.
The meaning and intention of the Legislature must govern, and these
are to be ascertained, not only from the phraseology of the provision
but also by considering its nature, its design and consequences which
would follow from construing it one way or the other.
24. In the case of Rajsekhar Gogoi Vs. State of Assam and Others
reported in AIR 2001 SC 2313, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
when consequence of nullification on failure to comply with a
prescribed requirement is provided by the statute itself, there can be no
manner of doubt that such statutory requirement must be interpreted
as mandatory.
25. In the case of Haridwar Singh Vs. Bagun Sumbrui and Others
reported in AIR 1972 SC 1242, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
in statue conferring a power to be exercised on certain conditions, the
conditions prescribed are normally held to be mandatory and the power
inconsistent in those conditions is impliedly negative. It is further held
that if an affirmative statute which is introduction of a new law directs
a thing to be done in a certain way, that thing shall not, even if there be
no negative words, be done in any other way. However, when it comes
to the statutes conferring private rights and benefits, which is the case
in hand, it has been held that when certain requirements are
prescribed by a statute as preliminary to the acquisition of a right
conferred by the statute, such prescriptions are mandatory for
acquisition of the right or benefit.
26. Taking into consideration of the Sections 116, 97 and sub-section 4 of
Section 86 of the Representative of the People Act, 1951 and the
judgments referred above, there can be no manner of doubt that even if
no consequences have been provided for not acting within the
stipulated period, the provision has to be treated as mandatory for the
simple reason that it seeks to confer a particular benefit on a candidate
by permitting him to join in the election petition as party. Since a
positive benefit is intended to be conferred by the statue then the
requirement of the statue cannot be done away with.
27. In the case of K. Venkateswara Rao and Another Vs. Bekkam
Narasimha Reddi and Others reported in AIR 1969 SC 872, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"In our opinion however the Limitation Act
cannot apply to proceedings like an election petition
inasmuch as the Representation of People Act is a
complete and self-contained code which does not
admit of the introduction of the principles or
provisions of law contained in the Indian Limitation
Act."
28. This Court finds that there is no specific consequences which have
been prescribed for not acting within the time prescribed under the
provisions of Section 116, 97 and Sub-Section 4 of Section 86, the
provisions itself is to be treated as mandatory in nature as it seeks to
confer a positive benefit on a candidate by permitting him to join as
part. In such event, he can only act within the four corners of the
provisions. That apart, it is also equally well settled law that when a
statue requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same has
to be done in that manner or not at all. In the absence of any provision
conferring power on the Court to enlarge the time period prescribed in
the statute, the Court is obviously denuded of its power to do so. It
would be acting beyond the statutory provisions, which is not
permissible.
29. The unreported judgement relied upon by the respondent no.6 in the
case of Kalyan Chaubey (supra), is not applicable in the present case
as in the said case, no issue was raised whether Limitation Act is
applicable in the case of Election Petition.
30. Considering the above, this Court holds that the application filed by the
respondent no.6 and the applicant is barred by limitation and
Limitation Act is not applicable.
31. The respondent no.6 during argument also tried to make out a case of
recrimination. Recrimination is provided under Section 97 of the
Representative of the People Act, 1951, which reads as follows:
"97. Recrimination when seat claimed.--
(1) When in an election petition a declaration that
any candidate other than the returned candidate
has been duly elected is claimed, the returned
candidate or any other party may give evidence to
prove that the election of such candidate would
have been void if he had been the returned
candidate and a petition had been presented
calling in question his election:
Provided that the returned candidate or such
other party, as aforesaid shall not be entitled to
give such evidence unless he has, within fourteen
days from the date of [commencement of the trial],
given notice to [the High Court] of his intention to do
so and has also given the security and the further
security referred to in sections 117 and 118
respectively.
(2) Every notice referred to in sub-section (1)
shall be accompanied by the statement and
particulars required by section 83 in the case of an
election petition and shall be signed and verified in
like manner."
32. The election of the returned candidate can be challenged on any of the
grounds mentioned in Section 100 of the said Act, 1951. A
recrimination could, therefore, be filed by the returned candidate or any
other party to the petition under Section 97. The requisite notice under
Section 97 would be accompanied by the statement and particulars
required by Section 83 in the case of an election petition and signed
and verified in like manner. The notice would be, in effect, a counter
petition presented by the returned candidate or any other party to the
petition accompanied by the statement and particulars required by
Section 83 in the case of an election petition and would also be
supported by the deposit of security and further security referred in
Section 117 and 118 of the said Act.
33. The purpose of a recrimination and the right to file a recrimination
accrues to the return candidate or any other party to the petition the
moment an election petition is presented containing a claim for a
further declaration that the petitioner himself or any other candidate
has been duly elected. The proviso of Section 97(1) merely enacts
conditions for exercise of such right of recrimination and states that the
returned candidate or such other party is not to be entitled to give such
evidence unless he has, within fourteen (14) days from the date of
commencement of trial, given notice to the Court of his intention to do
so and has also given security and further security referred under
Section 117 and 118 of the said Act.
34. In the case of Anwari Basavaraj Patil and Others (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"6. According to the said definition, the notice
of the recrimination should have been given in this
case within fourteen days of November 4, 1991.
Admittedly, it was submitted beyond the said
period. Section 83 deals with "contents of petition".
According to sub-section (1), an election petition (a)
shall contain a concise statement of the material
facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set
forth particulars of any corrupt practice that the
petitioner alleges including as full a statement as
possible of all the names of the parties alleged to
have committed such corrupt practice and the date
and place of the commission of each of such
practice and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner
and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of
pleadings. The proviso to sub-section (1) says that
where a petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the
petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit
in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of
such practice and particulars therein. Sub-section
(2) says that any schedule or annexure to the
petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and
verified in the same manner as the petition. Section
117 requires the election petitioner to deposit in the
High Court, at the time of presenting an election
petition, a sum of Rs 2000 as security for the costs
of the petition in accordance with the rules of the
High Court. Section 118 says that no person shall
be entitled to be joined as a respondent under sub-
section (4) of Section 86 unless he has given such
security for costs as the High Court may direct.
Section 86(1) declares that "the High Court shall
dismiss an election petition which does not comply
with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or
Section 117".
8. In H.N. Yadav v. L.N. Misra this Court held
that the words "expressly excluded" occurring in
Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act do not mean that
there must necessarily be express reference in the
special or local law to the specific provisions of the
Limitation Act, the operation of which is sought to
be excluded. It was held that if on an examination
of the relevant provisions of the Special Act, it is
clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are
necessarily excluded then the benefits conferred by
the Limitation Act cannot be called in aid to
supplement the provisions of the Special Act. That
too was a case arising under the Representative of
People Act and the question was whether Section 5
of the Limitation Act is applicable to the filing of the
election petition. The test to determine whether the
provisions of the Limitation Act applied to
proceedings under Representative of People Act by
virtue of Section 29(2) was stated in the following
words:
"The applicability of these provisions has,
therefore, to be judged not from the terms of
the Limitation Act but by the provisions of the
Act relating to the filing of election petitions
and their trial to ascertain whether it is a
complete code in itself which does not admit of
the application of any of the provisions of the
Limitation Act mentioned in Section 29(2) of
that Act."
13. The Division Bench then proceeded to
examine whether the applicability of Section 5 is
excluded in the matter of filing of an election
petition and came to the conclusion that it was so
excluded. This aspect has already been dealt with
hereinabove. So far as the decisions of the High
Courts are concerned, we cannot agree with them
insofar as the applicability of Section 5 to filing of
an election petition and/or recrimination notice is
concerned in view of the decision of this Court
in H.N. Yadav."
35. The respondent no.6 has not fulfilled the above conditions and filed an
application after the period of fourteen (14) days from the date of the
publication, thus the respondent no.6 cannot claim recrimination.
36. The respondent no. 6 and the applicant have also raised the issue that
the publication of Official Gazette in terms of the order passed by this
Court dated 13th August, 2025, is not in accordance with law that in
the said Gazette there is no mentioning that "there is no other
respondent who is opposing the petition".
37. By an order dated 13th August, 2025, this Court passed the following
order:
"28. As per Section 112 of the Act, 1951, the
Election Petition shall abate only on the death of a
sole petitioner or of the survivor of several
petitioners. In view of the same after the death of
the respondent no.1, question of abatement does
not arise in this case. The petitioner has informed
the death of the respondent no.1 by an affidavit
after serving copy to the other respondents. None of
the respondents have filed written statement nor
any notice given that they do not intend to oppose
the petition.
29. The elections and election disputes are
matter of special nature and that though the right
to franchise and right to office are involved in an
election dispute, it is not a lis at common law nor
an action in equity. The right to vote or stand as
candidate for election is not a civil right but is a
creature of statute or special law and must be
subject to the limitation imposed by it.
30. The general rule is well settled that the
statutory requirement of election law must be
strictly observed and that an election contest is not
an action at law or a suit in equity but is a purely
statutory proceeding unknown to the common law
power. It is also well settled that it is a sound
principle of natural justice that the success of a
candidate who has won an election should not be
lightly inferred with any petition seeking such
interference must strictly confirm to the
requirements of law.
31. The entire election process commencing
from the issuance of the notification calling upon a
constituency to elect a member or members right up
to the final resolution of the dispute, if any,
concerning the election is regulated by the
Representative of the People Act, 1951, different
stages of the process being dealt with by different
provisions of the Act. The legal position is,
therefore, well settled that election disputes are
strictly statutory proceeding.
32. Considering the above, this Court finds
that after the death of the respondent no.1
provisions of Section 116 of 1951 Act read with
Rule 41 of 1967 Rules has not been complied with
by way of publishing in the "Calcutta Gazette".
33. The petitioner is directed to take
appropriate steps by publishing in the "Calcutta
Gazette" in compliance of the provisions of Section
116 of the Act of 1951 read with Rule 41 of 1967
Rules within a period of three weeks from date."
Section 116 provides that "no other respondent who is opposing the
petition, [the High Court] shall cause notice of such event to be published
in the Official Gazatte".
The publication of the notice reads as follows:
"In terms of provision of Section 116 of the
Representative of the People Act, 1951, read with
Rule 41 of the Election Petition Rules of the High
Court at Calcutta, 1967 and pursuant to an order
dated 13th August, 2025 of the Hon'ble High Court
at Calcutta, passed by the Hon'ble Justice Krishna
Rao, in GA No. 01 of 2025; GA No.02 of 2025; in EP
No. 03 of 2024 [Rekha Patra v. S.K. Nurul Islam &
Ors.], IT IS NOTFIED for general information that
the petitioner has filed an Election Petition being EP
No.03 of 2024 on 16th July, 2024 in respect of 18-
Bashirhat Parliamentary Constituency in
connection with Parliamentary General Election,
2024 and during the pendency of the said Election
Petition and affidavit dated 13th December, 2024
was filed by the petitioner, in terms of Rule 39 of
the Election Petition Rules, 1967, stating the fact
that the respondent No.1 namely Sk. Nurul Islam
expired on 24th September, 2024 and any person,
who might have been a petitioner, may, within 14
(fourteen) days of the publication of this
Notification, apply to be substituted in place of
respondent No.1 to oppose the petition and shall be
entitled to continue the proceedings upon such
terms as [the Hon'ble High Court] may thinks fit.
The matter shall further be listed before the
Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao on the 25th day of
September, 2025."
38. On the basis of the said publication, the respondent no.6 and the
applicant have filed their respective applications. Neither the
respondent no. 6 nor the applicant has made any prayer in their
application for setting aside or recalling of the publication in the
Calcutta Gazette dated 8th September, 2025. No format is prescribed
either Section 116 of the Representative of the People Act, 1951 or
under the Rules for publication in the Calcutta Gazette. The respondent
no.6 and the applicant have acted upon the said Gazette by filing of
their respective applications with the prayer to allow them to continue
with the proceeding. This Court did not find any substance in raising
the issue that the publication is not made in accordance with law.
Considering the above, this Court finds that the applications filed by
the respondent no.6 and the applicant are barred by limitation,
accordingly, the same is rejected.
39. G.A. No. 3 of 2025 and G.A. No. 4 of 2025 are accordingly dismissed.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
