The Calcutta High Court has refused to stay the KMC ward delimitation that raises Kolkata’s municipal wards from 144 to 209, finding no prima facie case and holding that a petitioner who filed no objection cannot now complain of being denied a hearing.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has declined an interim stay on the West Bengal government’s notification of September 11, 2026 that amended Schedule II of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 to divide the city into 209 wards in place of 144, and has refused to restrain the State Election Commission from calling the civic polls on that basis [Dipu Das v. State of West Bengal and Others].
Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya heard the matter on October 28 and passed the order on October 29, 2026, clarifying that all findings are prima facie and limited to the prayer for interim relief.
The challenge
The petitioner, Dipu Das, a resident within KMC limits, sought to have the entire ward-determination exercise declared void. The petition alleges that the delimitation was based on electoral rolls rather than actual population, that ward boundaries ignore geographical contiguity, compactness and administrative convenience, and that the exercise was influenced by previous election results to secure partisan advantage for the ruling party.
Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, for the petitioner, argued that the exercise rested on a recommendation from the KMC made after the Corporation had been dissolved, and that the Municipal Commissioner, being only an officer of the Corporation, could not make such a recommendation. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Devilal to describe the exercise as gerrymandering.
Advocate General Surajit Nath Mitra, for the KMC, objected to maintainability under Article 243ZG of the Constitution, which bars courts from questioning laws on delimitation of municipal constituencies. He submitted that the Municipal Commissioner had been appointed Administrator by an order of June 8, 2026 with all the powers of the Corporation’s members, that objections were invited at every stage, and that the petitioner had filed none.
Petition entertained, but on limited grounds
Relying on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradhan Singh Kshettra Samiti, the Court held that a delimitation exercise can be challenged only on limited grounds, such as a failure to invite objections or give a hearing, and not after the election notification has been issued. Since no notification had yet been issued, it chose to entertain the petition.
Objections were invited at two stages
The record showed a notice of August 5, 2026 inviting objections to the preparatory draft Schedule II, and, after the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2026 came into force on August 20, a second window from August 22 to September 3 for objections to the draft Schedule II, followed by hearings on consecutive dates. The Court found nothing to show the petitioner had objected.
“A person having not submitted any objection / suggestion against the draft publication on amendment of Schedule II of the 1980 Act cannot be allowed to take a stand at this point of time that no opportunity of hearing was given to him prior to issuance of the notification dated 11th September, 2026.”
The Court rejected the argument that the exercise began before Section 5 of the Act was amended, holding that only preparatory work preceded the amendment. It held that Section 601 of the 1980 Act empowers the State Government to amend Schedule II, and that once the Corporation was dissolved, the Municipal Commissioner, appointed Administrator under Section 118(1)(b), held the powers of its members, the Mayor-in-Council and its committees, and was competent to make the recommendation.
Balance of convenience against a stay
Noting that Section 117 of the Act requires elections within six months of dissolution, and that a properly constituted Corporation with elected councillors is necessary for its functions, the Court held that a stay would affect the public at large.
“Interim order, as prayed for in the writ petition, if passed, would affect the interest of the public at large as the Corporation in that event would have to function in the absence of elected councillors. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is against passing of any interim order in a case of this nature.”
It distinguished Devilal as a case of constituencies being restructured midway through an election, whereas here the exercise was complete and no notification had issued. The respondents were given three weeks to file affidavits-in-opposition, with one week for a reply.
Why the order matters
Article 243ZG keeps courts largely out of municipal delimitation, leaving a narrow window to challenge the process before polls are notified, mainly on whether objections were invited and heard. The order applies that test and adds a practical point: a citizen who did not use the objection process will find it difficult to claim, at the interim stage, that he was denied a hearing.
The petitioner’s allegations of population-based errors and partisan line-drawing have not been rejected on merits; they remain for the final hearing. For now, the 209-ward map stands and the way is open for the State Election Commission to notify the Kolkata civic polls.
Case Title: Dipu Das v. State of West Bengal and Others [WPA 31433 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, Calcutta High Court
Date of Order: October 29, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya with Samim Ahammed, Ambiya Khatun, Arka Ranjan Bhattacharyya and Asif Ikbal Baidya for the petitioner; Advocate General Surajit Nath Mitra with Debanjan Mukherjee for the KMC; Sonal Sinha and Sandipan Das for the State Election Commission; Government Pleader D.N. Roy with Aparna Banerjee, Anindya Basu and Bikash Kumar Sriwastav for the State