Tapas Biswas vs West Bengal State Election Commission

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.—The seminal issue that spiralled in the course of hearing of this revisional application centres around on two grounds:-firstly, in spite of a specific order in C.O. No. 2275 of 2015 from a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the Trial Court has ignored the same, and secondly, that since the amendment application in connection with election petition was allowed, the same cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure.

At the very outset, I would like to refer the relevant part of the order of the Coordinate Bench "Trial Court is directed to take up the election petition and dispose of the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties within one month from the date of communication of this order in accordance with law. If necessary, the Trial Court shall fix the matter on day-to-day basis for recording the evidence of the contesting parties." (Emphasis supplied by me)

On a meticulous reading I would find that the Coordinate Bench held "if necessary, the Trial Court shall fix the matter on day-to-day basis for recording the evidence of the contesting parties." Therefore, in other words, if it was not necessary, the Trial Court shall decide the dispute. In this instant case, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure was filed mainly on the ground of limitation. As per Section 75 of West Bengal Municipal Act, the election petition has to be filed within ten days from the date of declaration of result. In the instant case, the date of election was fixed 25.04.2015 and 28th April, 2015 was fixed for declaration of result of such election. Therefore, the present petitioner ought to have filed the election petition within ten days to be reckoned from 28th April, 2015. Curiously enough, the present petitioner failed to obey the legislative mandate and he did not prefer the said application by the 8th May, 2015. So there was clear and gross violation of Section 75 of the West Bengal Municipal Act.

The petitioner wanted to take a chance that he came to know about the result long after publication of the same and so he should be given opportunity to adduce evidence. This argument does not impress me much.

It appears from the impugned order that the learned Trial Court has made elaborate discussion with sound logic in his order. Therefore, when it is manifest that the suit is ex facie barred by limitation in that case Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure has to be applied, which the learned Court below has done in this case.

I do not find any merit in the instant revisional application. Accordingly its stands dismissed but without cost. The impugned order passed by Mr. Prabir Kr. Mishra, Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Barasat is hereby affirmed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below for his information and taking necessary action in accordance with law.

Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.