Prasun Das vs Chief Election Commission & Ors.

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging inter alia an order dated 4th April, 2018 passed by the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal

being respondent no. 2 herein and praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to initiate proceedings against the concerned

Electoral Registration Officer (in short, ERO) under Section 32 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (in short, the said Act of 1950).

Records reveal that aggrieved by the order towards deletion of his name from the electoral role in Rajarhat Gopalpur (General) Assembly

Constituency, the petitioner initially approached this Court by a writ petition being W.P. No. 19054(W) of 2014. The said writ petition was disposed of

by an order dated 8th March, 2017. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal being MAT 471 of 2017. The said appeal was

disposed of by a judgement dated 22nd November, 2017 directing the Chief Electoral Officer to transfer the appeal filed by the petitioner under

Section 24(a) of the said Act of 1950 to any of the authorities as prescribed under Section 24(a). The Hon’ble Court further directed that the

concerned authority after receiving the records relating to the appeal shall make all endeavour to dispose of the same. In terms of the said order

passed by the Hon’ble Appeal Court the respondent no. 4 passed an order on 10th January, 2018. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner

preferred an appeal under Section 24(b) of the said Act, 1950 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 4th April, 2018.

Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that it would be explicit from the order passed in appeal under Section 24 (a) of the

said Act of 1950 by the respondent no. 4 that the said authority came to a finding that there has been an error on the part of the ERO in deleting the

petitioner’s name from the electoral role and accordingly the said respondent no. 4 cancelled the order of deletion. As such deletion of the name

of the petitioner from the electoral role was bereft of any reasonable cause, the authorities ought to have initiated a proceeding against the ERO as per

Section 32 of the said Act of 1950. The said issue was not appropriately considered by the respondent no. 2 while disposing of the appeal under

Section 24(b) of the said Act of 1950.

The next submission of Mr. Das is that the petitioner had been unnecessarily heckled and harassed and he had to run from pillar to post for

rectification of an erroneous decision of the ERO. For such harassment caused by the petitioner, he is entitled to compensation. Though the said issue

was categorically argued before the respondent no. 2, the same was not considered and such infirmity in the impugned order warrants interference of

this Court.

Per contra Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that the order of deletion of the name of the petitioner

from the electoral role passed by the ERO was set aside in the appeal under Section 24(a) of the said Act, 1950. The petitioner’s grievance has

thus been redressed on the basis of the said order. The contention of the petitioner to the effect that such deletion was intentional, was not accepted

by the respondent no. 2 and it was specifically observed upon consideration of all the facts that there was no deliberate intent on the part of the ERO

to delete the name of the petitioner.

Upon considering the materials on record, the respondent no. 2 in his order dated 4th April, 2018 arrived at a finding that the ERO deleted the

petitioner’s name since the concerned official could not locate the residence of the petitioner. The laches on the part of the ERO was not

intentional and there was no mala fide intent on the part of the ERO in deleting the name of the petitioner and for such error, the ERO cannot be

penalized. It is also not a case that the ERO has acted negligently with an intent to earn or to confer undue benefit warranting payment of

compensation to the petitioner.

It is well settled that the writ Court ought not to transpose itself as an appellate authority when a particular authority has performed its obligation and

has rendered a decision in the matter supported with cogent reasons. All the relevant records have been considered by the respondent no. 2 and a

reasoned order has been passed and there is no error of law on the face of the records. The said order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or

any manifest injustice warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary

formalities.