1AD-10 Court No. 29 A.D./G.
S.Das 24.4.2018 WP 4886(W) of 2018 PARTY FOR DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM (PDS) & ANR.
Versus WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.
Mr. Samir Putatunda Petitioner No.2 (In person) Mr. Nilanjan Sandilya Respondent No. 2 (In person) Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay Respondent No.9 (In person) Party/parties are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title.
Two issues have arisen for consideration in this writ petition. One of the issues has already been considered in the two writ petitions decided earlier today, i.e. WP 4880 (W) of 2018 and WP 4887 (W) of 2018.
By the judgment dated 24th April, 2018 this Court refused to intervene in the procedure adopted by the Commission for announcing an extended date for filing nominations along with two dates thereafter vide its notification dated 21st April, 2018. The discussion in the judgments dated 24th April, 2018 in WP 4880(W) of 2018 and WP 4887 (W) of 2018 are self-explanatory on the point.
Accordingly, in so far as the first point connected to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commission to extend the date of notification pursuant to the order of this Court dated 20th April, 2018, the earlier judgments are reiterated and no intervention is exercised by this Court on the issue.
However, a second issue of security arrangements connected to the polling process has time and again surfaced before this Court. This Court has noticed with attention the directions dated 6th April, 2018 in WP No. 4613 (W) of 2018 issued by a superior Bench on the police/security 2arrangements expected to be organised by the Commission in the election process. The directions dated 6th April, 2018 by the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Bench on a writ petition of one of the stakeholders/the Indian National Congress appearing in person, have moved ahead by filing of a contempt application No. CPAN 312 of 2018 in respect of which notice has been issued by the Honble Division Bench on the 19th April, 2018.
Therefore, this Court, at this stage, while not wishing to multiply the exercise as already undertaken by the Honble Division Bench and, in adherence to the directions of the Division Bench, only adds a few lines of its findings on the second issue of security arrangements which are as follows: First, the Commission, which admittedly is the holder of the electoral process under the statutory framework, shall take cognizance of the complaints filed before it by the major stakeholders connected to the provision of security arrangements in the electoral calendar and, shall consult the major stakeholders in person on the subject.
The Commission, shall, then place its estimate of security arrangements connected to the polling calendar, at each stage of it as necessary, before the Honble Division Bench for judicial review.
It is made clear that the consultation by the Commission on the aspect of security arrangements with the stakeholders shall be meaningful without seeking to at all impinge on the Commissions prerogative to carry forward the electoral process. However, at this stage, this Court needs to remind the Commission of the necessity of allaying the grievances as noticed by the Honble Apex Court vide its order dated 9th April, 2018.
Since undoubtedly from the facts presented cumulatively through successive hearings before this Court 3on election related matters, time and again the necessity of a satisfactory security climate is coming to the forefront.
With the above direction, no order further orders are necessary in this writ petition. The parties shall be free to place their views connected to the second limb of the directions of this Court as recorded above before the Honble Division Bench at any stage, subject to the leave granted by the Honble Division Bench.
WP 4886(W) of 2018 stands, accordingly, disposed of without pushing the matter to affidavits.
(SUBRATA TALUKDAR , J. )