Cal HC
Kolkata: Calcutta High Court on Wednesday directed that no notification regarding the KMC election be issued until Nov 6, when it is likely to pronounce its verdict on a petition challenging the delimitation of wards. A division bench of justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Arjun Ray Mukherjee reserved its judgment after hearing petitioner Dipu Das, a CPM worker from Kasba, challenging the state govt’s decision to increase the number of KMC wards from 144 to 209. After concluding the hearing, the division bench fixed Nov 6 for pronouncement of its verdict and directed that no notification relating to the polls be issued in the meantime. “In view of the submissions made by learned counsels on all sides, the matter cannot be finally decided today, and the matter is reserved for judgment and shall be listed next on Nov 6. In the meantime, no notification calling an election to the KMC on the basis of Schedule (ii) notified by the impugned notification shall be issued till Nov 6, 2026,” the bench said in its order. The state issued a notification on Sept 11 announcing the increase in the number of wards of KMC. Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya argued that the delimitation notification was issued in Sept when there was no elected KMC council in existence, and the civic body’s commissioner, Smita Pandey, had been appointed as its administrator following the dissolution of the corporation on June 8.
You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Kolkata | Silver Rate in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata | Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Petrol Price in Kolkata | Diesel Price in Kolkata | CNG Price in Kolkata | LPG Price in Kolkata Stay updated with the latest Kolkata news. The petitioner also alleged that the delimitation exercise was not carried out in accordance with the law and lacked rationality in determining ward boundaries. Challenging the notification, Das alleged that population, geographical location and administrative convenience had not been adequately considered while redrawing the boundaries. Das also alleged that the exercise was aimed at benefiting a particular political party. Bhattacharya contended that the administrator had been entrusted only with administrative responsibilities and could not exercise the powers of an elected corporation, particularly those involving legislative or policy decisions. Opposing the petition, state Advocate General Surajit Nath Mitra submitted that govt had first published a draft proposal for the increased number of wards and invited objections and suggestions. However, no objections had been raised at that stage, he argued. Download the TOI App.