RETURNING OFFICER EMPOWERED TO SHIFT COUNTING CENTRE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY AND SECURE FACILITIES

The petitioner, a candidate for the 149-Kasba Assembly Constituency, challenged the decision of the Returning Officer (RO) to shift the counting centre from Gitanjali Stadium (Kasba) to Viharilal College (Alipore).

The petitioner alleged that this move violated procedural requirements.

On April 26, 2026, the RO issued a notice for an urgent meeting held on April 27, where it was first communicated that counting would be moved to Viharilal College—approximately 8 km away from where the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) were stored.

The respondents justified the change as a policy decision to centralize counting for three constituencies at a single venue near the District Headquarter for better administrative control and security.

Rule 51 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which mandates that the RO appoint the place of counting at least one week before the poll but includes a proviso allowing the RO to alter the place after giving written notice to candidates.

Clause 14.5.1 of the Handbook for Candidates, which requires written intimation of the time and place of counting to contesting candidates.

Election Commission’s policy guidelines directing that counting centres should ordinarily be located at District Headquarters or secure Government buildings to ensure administrative control and security.

The court found that the procedural requirements for notification were substantially met. Although the venue was changed, the RO issued a notice on April 26, 2026, for a meeting on April 27, in which the petitioner participated and was informed of the relocation.

The court noted that the proviso to Rule 51 expressly grants the RO the authority to alter the counting place for sufficient reasons, provided notice is given.

The court accepted the respondents' justification that the shift to Viharilal College was necessitated by "centralized counting arrangements" and "rationalization policies" aimed at placing counting centres near District Headquarters.

The court observed that since the counting would be conducted under CCTV vigilance and secure movement plans for EVMs were in place, there was no evidence of prejudice or illegality.

The court found that the administrative reasons provided—namely security and centralization—were valid justifications. Consequently, the writ petition (WPA No. 10464 of 2026) was dismissed.