Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) Fourteen petitioners have joined in this petition having common grievance. They are aggrieved because reservation of seats in connection with election to the Board of Councilors of Jhargram Municipality (hereafter the Municipality), allegedly, has not been made in accordance with the provisions contained in the West Bengal Municipal Election (Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1994 (hereafter the said Rules). According to them while one seat has been shown as reserved for the third successive time, four other seats have never been reserved during the last ten years. Incidentally, all the petitioners claim to be voters entitled to vote in the election for constituting the Board of Councilors of the Municipality.
(2.) This Court has heard Mr. Sanyal, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bihani, learned Counsel for the District Municipal Election Officer at length. A preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the writ petition having been raised by Mr. Bihani, the said objection has to be decided first and only if the objection is overruled would the Court be justified in entering into the merits of the controversy.
(3.) Mr. Bihani referred to the provisions contained in Article 243ZG of the Constitution. According to him, in terms of clause (b) thereof the issue raised herein should be raised only by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided in the West Bengal Municipal Elections Act, 1994 (hereafter the Act). He invited the attention of the Court to Chapter VIII of the Act titled "Disputes Regarding Election" and in particular to Section 75 of the Act, which provides for the procedure to present election petition, and the first proviso thereunder to demonstrate that only in cases of situations covered either by clause (a) or by clause (b) thereof that presentation of an election petition would be barred. To drive home the point that having regard to the special remedy provided in the Act this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to interfere, he relied on the following decisions: 1) N.P. Ponnuswami vs. The Returning Officer & ors., 1952 AIR(SC) 64; 2) State of U.P. & ors. vs. Prodhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti & ors., 1995 AIR(SC) 1512; 3) Mohinder Singh Gill & anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner & ors., 1978 AIR(SC) 851; 4) Nanhoo Mal & ors. vs. Hira Mal & ors., 1976 3 SCC 211; 5) K.K. Shrivastava etc. vs. Bhupendra Kumar Jain & ors., 1977 AIR(SC) 1703; 6) Anugrah Narain Singh & anr. Vs. State of U.P. & ors., 1996 6 SCC 303; 7) O.C. Cheku vs. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands,1994 CalWN 1161; and 8) unreported decision dated 17.10.08 of a learned Single Judge of this Court on W.P. 26660 (W) of 2008 (Shibnath Chowdhury & ors. vs. State of West Bengal & ors.).;