NOMINAL INDEXSuman Dutta And Ors Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 293St. Mary’s Technological Foundation and Another Vs. The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 294Ankita Saha & Anr. V The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 295Bijoy Kumar Banik and another vs State of West Bengal and others 2023...
NOMINAL INDEX
Suman Dutta And Ors Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 293
St. Mary’s Technological Foundation and Another Vs. The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 294
Ankita Saha & Anr. V The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 295
Bijoy Kumar Banik and another vs State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 296
Ruksana Khatun Vs. Union of India and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 297
Nand Kishor Shaw & Ors. -Versus- State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 298
Dilip Adhikary Vs. Basanta Nath 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 299
Pravash Dalui And Ors Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 300
Palash Das Vs. The State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 301
Sri Nirbhay Lodh Vs. The UCO Bank & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 302
Sushil Kumar Thard vs. National Jute Manufactures Corporation Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 303
Case: Suman Dutta And Ors Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 293
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a PIL filed by the Sonarpur Uttar Vidhan Sabha Saradutsab Committee, seeking the Court’s permission to construct a Durga Puja pandal and organise Durga Puja celebrations from 19th-25th October, near 45 A/B Bus Stand.
In noting that the petitioner’s prayers were not sustainable as a PIL, and that the State had opened a comprehensive portal for granting Durga puja permissions, a bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held:
“This writ petition is not maintainable as a PIL…if an individual or group seeks to hold puja, they have to contact the appropriate authorities for consideration, by way of an application. If permission is granted, responsibility has to be affixed to whom permission has been granted. State has submitted that to obtain permission, application has to be made online through a dedicated portal, which has opened today. Thus, no directions are required to be issued, and the petitioners may seek permission by making applications through the portal.”
Case: St. Mary’s Technological Foundation and Another Vs. The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 294
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the passage of a “high-tension transmission line” overhead of a plot of land owned by the St. Mary’s Technological Foundation, which catered to Christian minorities and students from weaker sections of society.
In dismissing the arguments of the petitioners, while holding that the right to religious freedom ought to be balanced with overwhelming public interest, a single-bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:
It is well-settled that the right to get electricity has been read as a component of Article 21 of the Constitution, conferring the right to life. [As the Apex Court held] the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885, unobstructed access to lay down telegraph and/or electricity transmission lines is an imperative in the larger public interest, necessary for growth and development of a country and economy and the wellbeing and progress of the citizens. The key is, thus, to strike a balance between Article 30 of the Constitution and overwhelming public interest. The High Tension transmission line is to cater to huge sections of society, in the locality and elsewhere, including the petitioners themselves, who would also be beneficiaries thereof. Such overwhelming public interest cannot be brushed aside to give precedence to the right of the petitioners under Article 30(1), as held by the Five-Judge Bench in Islamic Academy (2003).
Case: Ankita Saha & Anr. V The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 295
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea by the writ petitioner, who challenged an order from the Chairman/Secretary, District Primary School Council, Dakshin Dinajpur (“Chairman’”), denying her compassionate appointment upon the passing of her father, who died-in-service in 2010.
In upholding the order passed by the Chairman, a single-bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf observed:
This Court does not find any infirmity with the order passed by the Chairman dated December 15, 2017, because not only was petitioner no.1 a minor of 14 years of age on the date of death of her father, but the two-year application period had also expired for petitioner no.1 after she attained the age of majority. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is not a right, rather an exception to Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India wherein the same must be provided in terms of the rules framed for such an appointment.
Case: Bijoy Kumar Banik and another vs State of West Bengal and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 296
The Calcutta High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by a couple who claimed that they had been driven out of their home by their son and daughter-in-law (“respondents”).
Petitioners claimed that they had right title and interest over the property and that the respondents had been torturing, intimidating and even assaulting them for a considerable amount of time, eventually ousting them from the house.
In reinstating the petitioners to their home, a single-bench of Justice Jay Sengupta held:
It appears that although the petitioner No.2 is presently the owner of the property in question which was originally owned by the petitioner No.1. They both have allegedly been ousted by their son and daughter-in-law. Regardless of the veracity of such allegations, the owners of the property have every right to stay there and their son and daughter-in-law could at best live there as licensees. At this age, the petitioners cannot be relegated to the civil court to obtain necessary relief in this regard.
Case: Ruksana Khatun Vs. Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 297
The Calcutta High Court has refused to pass orders in favour of a volleyball player who challenged her non-selection by the Volleyball Federation of India (“VFI”) for the 2023 Asian Games contingent.
Petitioner claimed that she was highly accomplished in the sport of Volleyball at the national level, and that those had achieved far less than her in the sport, had been selected due to a non-transparent selection process.
In dismissing the plea, a single-bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:
The court is not an expert in the field of Volleyball or, for that matter, in any sport. Hence, some amount of finality has to be attributed to the outcome of the selection process, which is supposed to be held by people having sufficient acumen of the concerned sport. However, the petitioner has a point in arguing that since the petitioner is one of the premier sports persons of the country in the field of Volleyball, she is at least entitled to know her deficiencies, as perceived by the selection committee [by accessing video footage of the selection process]…for the limited purpose of the petitioner assessing her own performance for future competitions.
Case: Nand Kishor Shaw & Ors. -Versus- State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 298
The Calcutta High Court has recently directed the State's Transport Department to publish all route/permit vacancies for plying of auto rickshaws in the State, to enable transparent allocation of the same.
In dismissing an appeal against a single-bench order which refused to interfere with the allocation of auto rickshaw permits for the Howrah-Don Bosco, Liluah route a division bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Supratim Bhattacharya held:
There may be some substance into individual grievances raised by the petitioners. If the same are entertained, they would not upset a number of awarded permits on a particular route, but could also deprive existing permit holders of rights. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgement [but] directs that henceforth all vacancies in any permit on any route would be indicated and published on the website of the concerned RTA in the State.
Case: Dilip Adhikary Vs. Basanta Nath
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 299
The Calcutta High Court has observed that offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“N.I. Act”), cannot be compounded without the complainant’s consent, in violation of Section 320 CrPC.
In dismissing two criminal revisions, a single-bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta held:
It is clear that the prayer of compromise at the stage of criminal revision before this High Court is not possible without consent of the complainant. Nothing prevented the petitioner to make the proposal before the Magistrate or the appellate court. However, the law of the land is well established to the fact that the compounding cannot be held violating the principle enumerated in Section 320 of the Cr.P.C, thus I am of a view that the offences as proved against the petitioner cannot be compounded.
Case: Pravash Dalui And Ors Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 300
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a writ petition moved by reserved category candidates in the WB Police Constable Recruitment 2019, whose names were excluded in a revised merit list that was published in 2022 pursuant to the impugned judgment by the WB State Administrative Tribunal (“SAT”).
The Bench restored the original merit list that quashed by SAT, in which reserved candidates who received marks equal to or more than general candidates, were treated as general category candidates.
In setting aside the decision of the SAT, and holding that the merit list published in 2021 was in accordance with the provisions of the various State Acts, a division-bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya cancelled the appointments made pursuant to the 2022 merit list and held:
In the case on hand the authorities prepared the original merit list/panel dated 26.03.2021 by placing the meritorious reserved category candidate in the unreserved category irrespective of the fact that they had availed the relaxation in age etc. The direction of the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment to prepare a panel afresh is in effect directing an authority to act de hors the statutory provisions which is not permissible. The names of several candidates of the reserved category which found place in the original merit list, got excluded in the revised merit list/panel published pursuant to the impugned judgment. Therefore, the revised list/panel prepared pursuant to the direction of the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside and quashed.
Case: Palash Das Vs. The State of West Bengal and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 301
The Calcutta High Court has directed the State to provide the petitioner, a person with 100% disability, with a wheel chair under the Prosthetic Aids and Appliances Scheme of the Government of West Bengal, as well as with a space/shop near Baranagar in order for the petitioner to start some business with the help of his wheelchair.
In taking exception to the apathy faced by the petitioner at the behest of the State, a single-bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:
The State has taken a palpably nonchalant attitude in abstaining from hearing of the matter repeatedly. The State cannot shirk its responsibility as parens patriae, having liability to look after citizens who are not able to look after themselves for some reason or the other beyond their own control.
Case: Sri Nirbhay Lodh Vs. The UCO Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 302
The Calcutta High Court has directed UCO Bank to disburse within a period of 6 weeks, the salary arrears, retirement and service benefits of a retired employee whose conduct during service is being disputed by the Bank.
Earlier, the petitioner’s order of dismissal by the Bank was dismissed by a co-ordinate bench, whose order was subsequently upheld by a division-bench on 27th June 2023.
In allowing the writ petition, a single-bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held:
“I see no merit in the arguments of the respondents to deny the petitioner his salary arrears, retirement and service benefits on grounds of pendency of appeal or the order of dismissal of service since both such grounds are redundant after the order of the Division Bench of this High Court dated June 27, 2023. The argument that they may file an appeal challenging the order of the Division Bench of this High Court in the future and therefore, in the eventuality of pendency of such future appeal, the petitioner must not receive his arrears is not sound in law. The possibility of pendency of future appeals cannot be grounds for not withholding an employee’s salary arrears, retirement and service benefits.”
Case: Sushil Kumar Thard vs. National Jute Manufactures Corporation Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 303
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that damages being claimed by a party, must satisfy the threshold of credibility, and not be mere “guesstimates” made without legal basis.
Petitioner was aggrieved by the National Jute Manufactures Corporation Limited (“NJMC/respondent no 1”), decision to forfeit the pre-bid earnest money deposited by the petitioner in response to a call for e-auction by the respondents.
In allowing the petitioner’s plea for refund of pre-bid earnest money held with the respondent, a single-bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held:
The right to forfeiture of earnest money cannot survive in the absence of proof of actual loss. Therefore, NJMC must prove that it has suffered loss or damage consequent to such refusal and is entitled to compensation. It is evident from the second affidavit of NJMC that the estimation of damages is inflated, exaggerated, unreasonable and remote, apart from failing to disclose any basis for the computation. NJMC simply seeks to make a windfall at the expense of the petitioner. As a Government of India undertaking, the act of forfeiture is also discriminatory and in breach of equality and fair play.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case: Biraj Sardar And Others Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors
Case No: WPA(P) 240/2023
The Calcutta High Court issued non-bailable warrants to secure the appearance of two private respondents accused of setting up and running an illegal and unauthorised Nursing College in the district of Bankura, West Bengal, without any necessary affiliations, thereby compromising the integrity of an “emergency service.”
On an earlier occasion, a division-bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya had directed for the private respondents to personally appear before it, in respect of their actions of allegedly running the aforesaid “sham” nursing college.
Upon being told that the respondents had refused to personally appear, despite repeated directions to that effect, the Court directed for a non-bailable warrant to be issued against the respondents, to secure their appearance before Court on the adjourned date of 17th October.
Case: Soumen Nandy & Ors v State of WB & Ors
Case No: WPA 9979/2022
The Calcutta High Court expressed serious doubts over the investigation being conducted by the CBI and ED into the multi-tier Cash-for-jobs scam, in which various high-level functionaries of the WB government are accused.
Justice Amrita Sinha castigated the Assistant Director (ED) for filing incomplete details about the assets held by Abhishek Banerjee, an accused in the case, and directors of 'Leaps & Bounds', a company linked to Banerjee allegedly used to siphon off the money.
“You had said the company leaps and bounds has been engaged in dubious transactions. What did you have to arrive at that finding? You say land was owned by the company…where are the details of the land? You have not mentioned anything else. You are (CBI and ED) the best investigative agencies in the country…with the best minds. Why did the court need to pass an order calling for the list of assets? It is your duty. The court is supervising it… we cannot tell you how to investigate because that is your expertise.”
Case: Majid Shekh -vs- State of West Bengal & ors.
Case No: WPA 22414 of 2023
The Calcutta High Court has transferred a case relating to alleged illegal seizure of a goods carrier by the West Bengal Police to the State's Crime Investigation Department (“CID”), after a clip was played in Court showing recordings of police officers asking for bribe from truck drivers to allow passage through certain police stations in North Dinajpur.
The petitioner, whose truck had been seized by the police officials, had placed the aforesaid recording on record, alleging that the police officers were attempting to extort him, and as a result, seized his vehicle.
While acknowledging that the veracity of the petitioner’s claims would have to be forensically verified, a single-bench of Justice Jay Sengupta observed:
A pen drive containing alleged audio conversations with police officers regarding fixing rates of bribes for giving passage through certain police stations, as filed on behalf of the petitioner, is taken on record. It is true that the veracity of these conversations have to be checked and necessary forensic tests have to be undertaken in this regard. However, if the allegations made by the petitioner are true, then it reflects poorly on the state of affairs. The truck that was seized has already been released by an order of Court. In the interest of justice, the investigation of the case be immediately transferred to the CID.
Case: EIH Limited -Versus- The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors
Case No: WPO 1611/2023
The Calcutta High Court has recently hauled up the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (“KMC”) in a plea challenging its alleged inaction pertaining to non-removal of unauthorised hawkers and street vendors on the “Oberoi Grand Arcade,” a heritage site and landmark situated in New Market.
In directing the KMC to submit a report in the matter, and not give out any further permits to the vendors without Court orders, a single-bench of Justice Amrita Sinha held:
The Corporation is directed to file a report with regard to the steps taken to keep the pavement free for pedestrians. The report of the Corporation shall mention as to whether any license has been issued in favour of any of the hawkers to sell goods and or articles in the pavement. Names and addresses of the hawkers/vendors in front of the subject premises shall be disclosed in the report to be filed by the Corporation. List the matter on 05.10.2023. No further license shall be issued by the Corporation without leave of the Court.
Panchayat Elections | Calcutta HC Abstains From Issuing Ex Parte ‘Rule’ In Contempt Against State Election Commission’s Alleged Violation Of Court Orders
Case: Suvendu Adhikari v Rajiva Sinha State Election Commissioner & connected applications
Case No: CPAN/831/2023
The Calcutta High Court on Friday abstained from the issuance of ex parte rule against the State and West Bengal State Election Commission in contempt proceedings arising out of alleged violation of Court’s orders pertaining to the deployment of central forces, et. al in the recently concluded Panchayat Elections.
Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appearing for the contempt applicants submitted that, if at the stage of conclusion of arguments of the applicants, the Court was prima facie satisfied that contempt had indeed occurred, then they were entitled to issue ‘Rule’ ex parte, under Rule 19 of the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Court Rules.
In refuting such a prayer, a division-bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Uday Kumar held:
“Senior Advocate for the applicants submits that at this juncture, the respondents are not required to be heard in the matter as it is the prima facie satisfaction of this court whether rule has to be issued. Nevertheless we have been hearing the contempt applications since 24th August 2023, and proposed as to how the matter would be heard. Therefore, the Court proposes to hear the respondents on the limited issue of the imposition of rule or otherwise.”