Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent no. 5 to dispose of the disqualification petition against the respondent nos. 7 to 19. The petitioner assails the vires of proviso to Section 21B(2) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the petitioner submits that, the petitioner being a tax payer and voter of Kandi Municipality, is entitled to ensure that, the candidates after being elected on the basis of a declared manifesto, does not defect. He submits that, the complaints of defection against the respondent nos. 7 to 22 ought to be looked into and considered, in accordance with law, by the respondent no. 5. He relies upon (Bharati Reddy v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., 2018 12 SCC 61) in support of his contention. He submits that, any person can bring to the notice of the Writ Court that, there is an infraction on the part of a statutory authority to discharge the duties enjoined on it by law. In support of his contention he relies upon (Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly v. Utkal Keshari Parida, 2013 11 SCC 794). According to him, the respondent no. 5 is obliged to look into the complaint of defection even if not made in accordance with the prescribed procedure. At times, the respondent no. 5 can take cognizance suo motu. In support of such contention, he relies upon (Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council & Ors., 2004 8 SCC 747).
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 7 to 18, 20 and 21 submits that, the petitioner has no locus to maintain the writ petition. The petitioner is not an elected member of the Board of Councillors of Kandi Municipality. The petitioner is not a party to the proceedings in which, similar issues were considered by the Writ Court. In fact, the petitioner is seeking to champion the cause of persons who are not aggrieved by the Order dated July 5, 2018 passed in W.P. No. 5941 (W) of 2018 (Apurba Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and the four writ petitions dealt with by such order. No right of the petitioner stands infringed by any action or inaction of the respondent no. 5. There is no lis pending between the petitioner and any of the respondents for the petitioner to complain that the respondent no. 5 is not acting. The respondent no. 5 is not a person entitled to make a complaint of defection under Section 21B of the Act of 1993. In support of such contentions, he relies upon (Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector Raigad & Ors., 2012 4 SCC 407), (Lutfa Begum & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.,2007 2 CalHC 57) and (Sri Amiya Patra & Anr. v. District Magistrate, Bankura & Ors., 2013 1 WbLR 611). Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 7 to 18, 20 and 21 submits that, the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the same issues as raised earlier in the five writ petitions dealt with by the Order dated July 5, 2018. The complaint of defection made against the respondent nos. 13 to 19 in the present writ petition, is a complaint by the respondent no. 22 who was a party in the earlier round of litigations. The respondent no. 22 did not seek any relief with regard to his complaint. Moreover, the respondent no. 22 had made the complaint immediately after the date of conclusion of the hearing of the earlier litigation.;