The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that belated objections to the Draft Voters’ List in co-operative society elections do not warrant interference by the writ court once the election process is conducted as per the notified schedule. The judgment upholds the requirement of adhering to statutory timelines for objections and clarifies that electoral disputes must be addressed through remedies available under Co-operative Election Commission Rules. This decision consolidates judicial precedent restricting court intervention and strengthens the statutory process for election grievances in the co-operative sector, serving as binding authority for similar future cases within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAT/1694/2025 of MD. SAFIUL ISLAM AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0470272025 |
| Date of Registration | 24-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, HON’BLE JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench (Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, Justice Apurba Sinha Ray) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the order of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court |
| Type of Law | Election Law — Co-operative Societies |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that since objections to the Draft Voters’ List were raised after the stipulated date, the A.R.O. was justified in proceeding with the election process as per schedule. Judicial interference in the election process is unwarranted once statutory deadlines have passed and the process is conducted lawfully. Parties aggrieved by electoral issues must seek remedy before the Co-operative Election Commission as per the Rules, and not through the writ jurisdiction. The court expressly left all questions open for determination by the Election Commission, without being influenced by observations in the writ proceedings. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Emphasis on adherence to statutory timelines for objections; primacy of statutory remedy before Co-operative Election Commission for electoral disputes. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
A member of Biprasekhar Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited filed a writ petition challenging the inclusion of deceased members in the Draft Voters’ List, seeking a stay of elections. Although a Draft Voters’ List was published and objections were to be filed by 28-08-2025, an objection claimed to be filed on 08-09-2025 bore no official stamp or receipt. The election process was completed on 24-09-2025 as per schedule. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge, leading to the appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India dealing with co-operative societies’ election disputes |
| Follows | Affirms the earlier procedure and order by the Calcutta High Court Single Judge in WPA 21950 of 2025 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that objections to the Draft Voters’ List in co-operative society elections must be filed within the stipulated time; delayed objections are not ground for court intervention.
- Clarifies that the Co-operative Election Commission is the appropriate forum to adjudicate election-related disputes, not the writ court.
- Observations by the writ court or appellate bench do not preclude or prejudice the Election Commission’s independent decision-making under the Rules.
- Lawyers should advise aggrieved members to promptly utilize statutory remedies before the Election Commission in electoral matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the published election schedule for the co-operative society included a clear deadline (28-08-2025) for filing objections to the Draft Voters’ List.
- The purported objection raised by the appellant was filed after the specified deadline and was not officially acknowledged by the A.R.O.
- The A.R.O.’s decision to proceed with the election in accordance with the published schedule was justified given the absence of timely objections.
- Completing the election process per statutory schedule bars judicial interference unless statutory processes are shown to be violated.
- The Court affirmed that election-related disputes and questions of fact must be addressed before the Co-operative Election Commission, preserving parties’ rights under applicable Rules.
- The order by the Learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition was found proper; all questions were left open for possible future determination by the statutory authority.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged that certain deceased members were included in the Draft Voters’ List.
- Sought a stay of the co-operative society election process due to alleged irregularity.
Respondent (Co-operative Election Commission)
- Argued that the election schedule was duly followed and the process completed on 24-09-2025 as notified.
- Highlighted that objections must be raised within the stipulated timeframe, which the petitioner failed to do.
- Emphasized that the objection purportedly submitted lacked official acknowledgment and was filed after the deadline.
Factual Background
A member of Biprasekhar Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court, challenging the inclusion of deceased individuals in the Draft Voters’ List for upcoming co-operative society elections. The Draft Voters’ List was open for objections until 28-08-2025, but the petitioner claimed to have filed an objection only on 08-09-2025, without official acknowledgment from the A.R.O. Despite the late objection, elections proceeded and were completed as per the published schedule on 24-09-2025. The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge, leading to this intra-court appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- The court analyzed statutory provisions and election rules governing the conduct of co-operative society elections.
- Interpreted the requirement for filing objections to Draft Voters’ Lists strictly in accordance with the notified schedule.
- Directed aggrieved parties to pursue electoral grievances before the Co-operative Election Commission, as prescribed by relevant Rules.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinion was recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were specified in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
✔ Precedent Followed – The court affirms the position that courts will not interfere in ongoing election processes where statutory remedies and timelines have not been duly observed.