The High Court of Calcutta came down heavily over a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) having similar content to a petition filed by some of the nominees to the Panchayat polls, which was pending for hearing before the High Court.
In the current plea, some voters had complained that the unopposed elections of candidates from the ruling party from their block, while stopping the candidature of rival ‘prospective’ nominees, took away their right to choose.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sivagnaman and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta noted on Monday that a similar petition, filed by some ‘prospective’ candidates, complaining of being stopped from filing nominations from Canning-I block, was pending before the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amrita Sinha.
The High Court noted the substantial similarities between the recitals and prayers of both Writ petitions filed in the matter by private litigants.
It orally remarked that the averments in both the petitions, including more than seven paragraphs and at least eight grounds were found to be not just similar, but identical. Even the font was found identical, it added.
Terming it as a serious allegation that the petitioner has been set up by the candidate whose plea was already pending before the Single-Bench, Justice Sivagnaman said if he dictated a judgement, the language would be different from the one authored by Justice Gupta.
Addressing the Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Justice Sivagnaman said even the Advocate and his junior would use different types of expressions while dictating a petition.
The judge directed the lawyer not to ‘run away’ from the problem, else the Court would summon the petitioner. Noting that the current plea was a ‘cut-paste’ copy of the one pending before a Single-Judge Bench, the High Court asked the Counsel why the petition should not be rejected on this ground.
It further said that the High Court could easily draw the inference that somebody had set up this petitioner or that he was a mouthpiece of somebody, who was being projected as a public interest litigant.
The High Court made the observations while hearing the PILs filed by people, claiming themselves to be ‘independent’ voters. The petitioners objected to the unopposed elections of candidates against 274 seats of the Canning- I block in the Panchayat elections.
The petitioners alleged that desirous candidates were not allowed to file nominations and this had in turn affected the right of the electorate to choose, leading to unopposed victories for the ruling party candidates.
The Counsel for the candidates contended that they had not been made party to the said writ petition and hence, their rights could not be prejudiced till they were given a chance to be heard in the matter after being made parties to it.
The Counsel for the State Election Commission as well as the Counsel for the State of West Bengal questioned the maintainability of the petition in its present format.
They said the grounds laid out in both petitions were identical, giving rise to a suspicion of mala fide and proving that the petition was not public-spirited, but in fact politically motivated. The Division Bench listed the petition for further hearing on July 4.
(Case title: Taj Md Halder vs State of WB)