JAHANGIR FAKIR DEBAPRIYA MAJUMDER vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. — WPA/8861/2026

Case under No Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 13-Apr-2026

CNR: WBCHCA0171482026

Filing Number

WPA/8825/2026

Filing Date

09-Apr-2026

Registration No

WPA/8861/2026

Registration Date

09-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar , Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar , Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

Residuary ( 26 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

13-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JAHANGIR FAKIR DEBAPRIYA MAJUMDER

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar,hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar GuptaView PDF

    The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition appeal filed by Jahangir Fakir against the Union of India regarding election matters. Since election results had been published and respondent no. 10 succeeded in the election, the court held that the appellant's remedy lies before the appropriate statutory forum rather than the High Court, and declined to interfere with the impugned order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar,hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar GuptaView PDF

  4. 28-Apr-2026

    Application (Gr - IX)

    Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar , Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

  5. 13-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Krishna RaoView PDF

  6. 13-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 09-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPA/8861/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition appeal filed by Jahangir Fakir against the Union of India regarding election matters. Since election results had been published and respondent no. 10 succeeded in the election, the court held that the appellant's remedy lies before the appropriate statutory forum rather than the High Court, and declined to interfere with the impugned order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case