Calcutta HC Defers Kolkata Civic Poll Bugle; Division Bench: Ward Delimitation Dispute Solution First
The division bench stated in its order, "(Appeal filed by Das) is allowed in part: Reports
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court “restrained” the West Bengal State Election Commission on Friday from announcing the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) polls due to a pending case against the delimitation of 144 wards into 209 in the city after BJP came to power.
An HC vacation division bench, headed by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Arjun Roy Mukherjee, ordered that until a single bench, headed by Justice Hiranmoy Bhattacharya, adjudicates the petition, filed by a former CPI(M) councillor Dipu Das, against the ward delimitation, the civic polls can not be notified.
It also modified the single bench's order that earlier refused to stay the poll process despite Mr Das’ petition challenging the state government's decision to redraw the number of KMC wards.
The division bench stated in its order, "(Appeal filed by Das) is allowed in part, by modifying the impugned order (of single judge refusing to stay delimitation exercise) by restraining respondent no. 6, that is the West Bengal State Election Commission, from issuing a notification calling an election to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on the basis of the amended Schedule II of the KMC Act... till disposal of WPA 31433 of 2026. The rest of the said impugned order is not interfered with, naturally the observations are tentative in nature insofar as final disposal of the writ is concerned.”
It passed the order after hearing an appeal filed by Mr Das, who was represented by his party leader and former Kolkata Mayor Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, challenging the single judge's refusal to stay the poll process.
During the hearing, Mr Bhattacharya, pointed out that the delimitation notification was issued on the recommendation of Smita Pandey, an IAS officer who has been serving as administrator of the KMC after the dissolution of the municipal council.
He also argued that the administrator’s step should not be considered as the recommendation of an elected corporation as she serves there as an employee. Opposing his submission, state advocate general Surajit Nath Mitra reasoned that the state government has been empowered to conduct the delimitation exercise even in the absence of a recommendation from the corporation. He then questioned the timing of the appeal.
