NOMINAL INDEXRakesh Sha vs The State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 240Avinaba Dutta & Another v State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 241Satyendranath Halder And Ors Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 242Suvendu Adhikari v State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 243Apurba Biswas & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 244Sri...
NOMINAL INDEX
- Rakesh Sha vs The State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 240
- Avinaba Dutta & Another v State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 241
- Satyendranath Halder And Ors Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 242
- Suvendu Adhikari v State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 243
- Apurba Biswas & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 244
- Sri Ravi Kumar v Union of India & Others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 245
- Payel Paul Adhikary v Union Of India And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 246
- Debabrata Chakraborti @ Debabrata Chakraborty Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 247
- Suvendu Adhikari v State of West Bengal & ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 248
- Abdul Rakib v The State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 249
- Ashadullah Biswas @ Asadulla Biswas v The Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 250
- Shri Jagannath Goswami & Ors. Vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 251
- Park Hospitals and another Vs. The West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission and another 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 252
- Thaddeus Lakra And Others Vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 253
- X v State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 254
- Ranjan Das v The State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 255
- Asgar Ali Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 256
- M/S Hytone Merchants Pvt Ltd V Prasenjit Das And Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 257
- Radha Bhattad v Rashmi Cement Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 258
Case: Rakesh Sha vs The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 240
The Calcutta High Court’s Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri recently allowed the bail plea of an accused under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (“NDPS”) upon taking note of various ‘procedural infirmities’ in the chargesheet.
A division-bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Prasenjit Biswas held:
A mere statement of filing of a supplementary charge-sheet upon obtaining the Examination Report does not conform to the statutory mandate under the proviso to section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The Chemical Examination Report becomes the most vital piece of evidence which is required to be made part of the charge-sheet.
Court said filing of charge-sheet within 180 days without the Chemical Examination Report with simply a line that a supplementary charge-sheet will be filed in future with the Examination Report is beyond the contemplation of the proviso to section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.
Case: Avinaba Dutta & Another v State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 241
The Calcutta High Court’s Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri recently quashed criminal proceedings against a transgender rights activist & researcher, who had been accused of kidnapping by the family of a trans-woman, whom he helped escape from alleged mental and physical torture at her home.
In quashing the FIRs against the petitioner, a single-bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas opined:
To prove the ingredients of section 365 IPC, it is essential that there should be abduction, if no abduction is there; the offence under section 365 is not made out. The victim/opposite party no.3 submitted that she left her house voluntarily and is presently residing at Bengaluru. There is neither any case of abduction nor kidnapping prevails with regard to the petitioners as the opposite party no.3 left home voluntarily by her own choice. So, I am of the opinion that the offence under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code does not attract in terms of the facts and circumstances of the case and the ingredients of the offence under section 365 of IPC can be said to be totally absent on the basis of allegation in the complaint.
Case: Satyendranath Halder And Ors Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 242
The Calcutta High Court on Monday dismissed a PIL challenging the order of the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO) allocating a portion of the Adiganga water body in the Sundarbans to the private respondents under the West Bengal Land Reform Act, 1955. (“WBLR”)
Petitioners argued that the respondents were preventing Hindus in the area from offering their worship at the water body, even though the same was attached to a temple, and prayers were carried on since 1933.
In dismissing the PIL with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of allocation under provisions of the WBLR Act, a division-bench of CJ Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held:
“It was submitted by the respondents that they are not preventing any Hindus from performing religious rituals during temple festivals and other days. No further direction is required to be issued, except to observe that the plot of land in question shall be preserved as a water body, and the public of area belonging to all faiths of religion shall be free to offer prayers and carry out rituals there. We leave it open to the petitioner to challenge the order of the authority under provisions of the WBLR Act.”
Case: Suvendu Adhikari v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 243
The Calcutta High Court on Monday dismissed a PIL filed by BJP’s Suvendu Adhikari against the “Revisionary Students Union/Federation”, an allegedly banned students union stated to be operating from within Jadavpur University.
Upon perusing the writ petition, a bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya expressed strong resentment and said,
“Are you very serious with the writ petition? We didn’t expect this. News paper reports, next day morning a writ petition. We find from the newspapers itself that already action has been initiated by the respondent police. Therefore, there is no reason to entertain this writ petition…don’t exhaust yourself. Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.”
Case: Apurba Biswas & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 244
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging an upcoming solid-waste management plant (“SWM”) set up under the Swaccha Bharat mission, on grounds of it ‘illegally creating organic fertilizer’, thereby causing a nuisance and hazard for general public.
Upon perusing a report of the Block-Development Officer, Bongaon, on the proposed steps to be taken at the facility, in terms of safety, sensitising the public, and converting organic waste into recyclable material, a division-bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held:
In the light of the report submitted by the Block Development Officer, which is taken on record, we find that the apprehension of the writ petitioners is baseless. Therefore, no direction as sought for in the writ petition can be granted except to observe that the authorities upon establishing the solid waste management plant shall ensure that the area is kept clean and the segregation of the garbage is done in a proper manner and also to ensure that the local residents are in not in any manner affected by the establishment of the solid waste management facility.
Case: Sri Ravi Kumar v Union of India & Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 245
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a writ petition moved by a CISF constable challenging his dismissal from service for alleged lack of oversight during his duty at the ISSCO Steel Plant in Burnpur, due to which certain miscreants entered the plant wielding weapons, in an attempt to steal copper wire.
In setting aside the order of dismissal, which labelled the petitioner a ‘conniver’ and of possessing ‘shady integrity’, a single-bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held:
A disciplinary authority acts a quasi-judicial authority and hence, observation and findings of such authority must be based on plausible evidence and such authority should not make any observation or comment which is not based on any evidence. Such an observation casts a stigma and leaves a permanent scar on the character of one person or employee and hence, it is expected that such authority must be circumspect in making such observation and/or comment.
Case: Payel Paul Adhikary v Union Of India And Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 246
The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the administrative wing of the Court to ensure that daily orders of both civil and criminal courts under its supervision are promptly uploaded on its E-Courts server.
The bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya said the Court is not sufficiently equipped to grant such relief. It however granted liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue on the administrative side or in a PIL.
"This Court, in its judicial capacity, is not sufficiently equipped to keep a tab on the uploading status of each and every civil and criminal court under the supervision of the High Court. In the event the petitioner has any particular instance of difficulty on such score, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Registrar General or this Court, in its administrative capacity, to deal with such issue. The petitioner will also be at liberty, if necessary, to approach the concerned civil and criminal court, if need so arises, ventilating such grievance to the said authority. That apart, the petitioner will be at liberty to file a public interest litigation if the petitioner makes out a sufficient case for such exercise of power by the appropriate Division Bench. If so filed, nothing in this order shall influence or prejudice the rights of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever."
Case: Debabrata Chakraborti @ Debabrata Chakraborty Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 247
The Calcutta High Court has directed the State government to probe the allegations levelled against practice of medicine by a fake doctor in West Bengal. It added that though it had come to light that the PIL petitioner lacked bona fides, the direction was issued by the Court in public interest and will subsist.
Noting that the litigant had not disclosed in the petition that he was the alleged fake doctor's (respondent) brother and had already lost in a civil suit against him, a division-bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya opined:
“After the order has been dictated, it is submitted that this PIL lacks bona fide since the petitioner is the respondent’s brother, and having been unsuccessful in the civil litigation has filed this PIL. In the petition, there is no disclosure of his relationship with the respondent or the civil litigation between the parties. We find that this is not a bona fide PIL. However, our direction (for State authorities to probe into matter) is keeping in mind the health of the general public, who should not be misled and cheated by being treated by someone unqualified. However, due to the non-disclosure of the petitioner, and in deprecating his conduct, we impose a cost of Rs 10,000.”
Case: Suvendu Adhikari v State of West Bengal & ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 248
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea moved by the BJP’s Suvendu Adhikari seeking a probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the recent explosions that occurred at an allegedly illegal firecracker factory in Duttapukur, West Bengal on 27th August.
In dismissing the PIL as premature, a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held:
“This incident occurred on 27th August 2023, your representation makes it seem like it happened in 2020. It only happened day before yesterday. Immediately you are filing PIL, what is to be done? If investigation is not happening, some irregularities are there…but you are filing this enclosing newspaper cuttings for something that happened two days ago. Already investigation has been taken up by the State police, and thus this petition is premature. The police has to be allowed time to complete the investigation, and thereafter if any grievances are there, the petitioner can pursue the same. Petition stands dismissed.”
Case: Abdul Rakib v The State of West Bengal
Citaiton: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 249
The Calcutta High Court’s Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri recently granted bail to an accused under the NDPS Act, who had been charged with possession of commercial quantities of YABA Tablets.
At the outset, a division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Prasenjit Biswas observed that the commercial truck in which the contraband was being transported being owned by an individual would not be a 'public place' and hence rigour of Section 42 NDPS Act would apply.
Section 42(1) casts a mandate on the designated officer to record his “reason to believe” with reference to personal knowledge or information received, before entering and searching. Section 42(2) continues the statutory mandate on the officer to intimate his immediate official superior the information recorded in writing and the grounds for his belief.
The Bench observed that while the petitioner’s vehicle was for commercial purposes, it remained under individual ownership, not meant for public use or transportation and thus, section 42’s mandate would apply to the present case, but the police had not complied with the same.
Case Title: Ashadullah Biswas @ Asadulla Biswas v The Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 250
The Calcutta High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against former CPI(M) leader and alleged fake currency racketeer Mr. Asadullah Biswas, accused under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) for allegedly storing and transporting 3400 kgs of poppy seeds, from a storage facility owned by him.
The Bench comprising Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul while directing the matter to proceed towards trial, has held that:
"The prima facie case of the prosecution (NCB) against the petitioner Ashadullah Biswas is that he stores contraband in his godown and a huge quantity of poppy straw (85 bags each containing 40 kgs, total 3400 kgs) was loaded for transportation from the godown of Ashadullah Biswas. Further case is that Ashadullah Biswas, the petitioner on regular basis stores poppy straw (contraband) unlawfully in his godown and transports the same to different parts of the country. The said fact has been stated by a co-accused. Other than the said statements there are also other materials on record to show that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner to proceed towards trial.”
Case: Shri Jagannath Goswami & Ors. Vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 251
The Calcutta High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against the Vice Chairperson and Directors of the Tamluk Ghatak Co-operative Bank who are accused by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Burdwan, of inter alia cheating, criminal breach of trust, etc. during the sanctioning of a loan.
In directing for the instant case to proceed towards trial, a single-bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf held:
Allegations outlined in the FIR do indeed amount to an offence against the accused individuals and reveal the presence of a cognizable offence. Secondly, it is evident that the accusations are neither ludicrous nor implausible, as there exist substantial reasons to proceed with the case against the accused parties. Lastly, this Court is of the view that there is no justifiable cause to quash the proceedings, as they are not tainted with malicious intent or motivated by any ulterior motive seeking retribution against the accused, driven by personal animosity or private grudges It is imperative to comprehend that the term "entrustment" in this context denotes the delegation of the authority to sanction loans to the customers of the cooperative bank, subject to adhering to the guidelines duly established by the competent authority. It is my considered view that such authority was vested in the petitioners. Consequently, allegations of irregularities arising during the disbursement of loan amounts have been brought to my attention, and I firmly opine that these issues necessitate thorough examination by the lower court.
Case: Park Hospitals and another Vs. The West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 252
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday directed the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) to re-adjudicate a case concerning the death of a pregnant doctor, who unfortunately passed away after being made to wait and thereafter being refused admission by various clinical establishments (“CEs”).
The plea moved by one of the accused clinical establishments (“BNWCCC”) averred that they were the only ones made liable for medical negligence, whereas two other hospitals who had also turned a blind eye to the deceased were given a clean chit.
A single-bench of Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya directed the Commission to re-examine the matter and held:
Accordingly, WPA No.16381 of 2021 is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned award passed the respondent no.1 Commission dated September 6, 2021 on the sad demise of Dr. Shraddha Bhutra. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.1-Commission for a re-adjudication, upon giving opportunity to the parties to produce further evidence to substantiate their cases and for a fresh decision on the issue as to the compensation to be awarded against the BNWCCC and/or Belle Vue Clinic in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the observations as made hereinabove. It is expected that the Commission shall complete such re-adjudication at the earliest, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order to the Commission.
Case: Thaddeus Lakra And Others Vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 253
The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed a PIL challenging agreements through which land allotted to scheduled tribe communities had been allegedly “grabbed” for illegally constructing a housing complex in Bidhannagar.
A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivgananam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya refused to allow the return of land and a CBI inquiry into their transfer, finding that the PIL was filed with over 15 years of delay.
"The schedule tribe raiyats who applied for permission to transfer does not appear to have any grievance against the said order dated 17.10.2006. Such order has already attained finality. The parties have also taken further steps acting on the said permission to transfer. Third parties have also acquired rights in the property in question who are also not before this Court. The original owners of the lands in question have also not approached the Court with any grievance. The action of writ petitioners amounts to assailing the order dated 17.10.2006 by which the Revenue Officer allowed the prayer of the raiyats of tribal lands to transfer their property. What the petitioners could not have done directly are attempting to do so in an indirect manner by filing this writ petition in the year 2022. The writ petitioners have approached this Court at a highly belated stage."
Case: X v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 254
The Calcutta High Court has recently allowed a plea by a 13-year old rape survivor for medically terminating her 26-week pregnancy and issued directions on the Child Welfare Committee, Purba Mednipur (“CWC”) to provide her younger sibling, and herself with all necessary assistance since they had been deserted by their migrant labourer-parents.
In allowing the minor’s plea, a single-bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya directed the CWC to assist the survivor in travelling to SSKM Hospital, Calcutta who would set up a medical board to determine the viability of terminating her pregnancy.
Referring to one of its recently passed judgements, the Court held:
“The outer limit of 24 weeks of pregnancy as stipulated in Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act is not sacrosanct. there are situations where a decision can be taken for termination of pregnancy where the continuance of pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of a pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical and mental health or if there is a substantial risk that the child, if born, would suffer from serious physical or mental abnormality. Hence, taking a comprehensive view of the relevant provisions of law as discussed above, the survivor is not only a minor but a victim of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault and, as such, the continuance of the pregnancy resulting from such heinous crime constitutes a grave injury to the mental health as well as physical constitution of the victim…for all practical purposes it would only be justified that the victim girl’s pregnancy is directed to be terminated.”
Case: Ranjan Das v The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 255
The Calcutta High Court’s Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri has recently held that cruelty contemplated u/s 498A would be different from general matrimonial disturbances faced by a couple, and that general allegations could not be made to establish a crime u/s 498A.
In upholding the appellant’s conviction u/s 323 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to his wife, while discharging him u/s 498A IPC, a single-bench of Justice Sugato Majumder held:
Cruelty contemplated in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is different from day to day bickering between the husband and wife. Sweeping and general allegations cannot be relied upon to conclude that offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been perpetrated. The Trial Court committed error in coming to conclusion that the Appellant is guilty of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be quashed. However, conviction and sentence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code stands upheld, in view of oral and corroborating documentary evidence.
Case: Asgar Ali Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 256
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed the appeal of a man accused of committing unnatural offences (under Section 377 of the IPC) on his 3-year-old neighbour, upon the prosecution having established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) observed that the evidence rendered by the child’s mother would be the ‘best evidence’ in such cases.
"A mother’s evidence in a case of this nature is the best evidence before the Court. As truthful and sacred as the love in her heart for her tender helpless child of 3 years. A mother is the shield which protects her child against any harm that may befall upon the child. Cases of such nature do not come with eyewitness/eyewitnesses and one should not expect the same, as such acts are done in private, being against nature and the law. The act of the appellant herein constitutes the ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and the same has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt by way of evidence both oral and documentary evidence. The appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a week from the date of this order to serve out his sentence in default, Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law."
Case: M/S Hytone Merchants Pvt Ltd V Prasenjit Das And Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 257
The Calcutta High Court has recently utilised its contempt jurisdiction to direct those in violation of the Court’s orders to contribute towards social and ecological good.
In directing the contemnors to pay costs of Rs 25,000 each, to one Gram Samriddhi Foundation for utilisation in the furtherance of sustainable rural development and prosperity of villages in Bengal, as well as to plant “ten fruit-bearing trees” under the aegis of the aforesaid foundation, a single-bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf held:
The Contemnors have graciously admitted that they have committed flagrant violation of the Court’s orders, but have further submitted that there were compelling circumstances for them to undertake such actions and tendered an unconditional apology. To secure the ends of justice, I am the view that the Contemnors must do some social good for this Court to countenance their act of contempt. Plantation of trees is one such exercise which this Court would consider because trees, for as long as they are alive, be it for decades or for centuries, would incessantly and silently provide multiple benefits to the people.”
Case: Radha Bhattad v Rashmi Cement Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 258
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that, as a Court of record, a High Court can review and correct its own orders by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution.
In upholding the maintainability of the present review application, a single-bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held:
It is important to demarcate the source if invocation of the power of review and the power to enter into a substantive review of the order on merits. Article 215 of the Constitution declares High Courts to be Courts of records. Being Courts of records, the High Courts are invested with inherent powers to correct the records. The term “Courts of records” does not simply mean keepers of records but that the High Courts have an obligation, indeed a duly, to maintain correct records within its jurisdiction in accordance with law. The power to correct orders, including where there is an apparent error on the face of the record, falls within the plenary powers of the High Court as a Court of record.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case: Soumen Nandy v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. and connected applications
The Calcutta High Court recently directed the West Bengal Board of Primary Education to take appropriate steps against beneficiaries in the infamous Teacher-Recruitment scam, identified in a list produced by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) and Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) upon earlier orders of the Court.
In perusing the list of names produced by the CBI and ED, a single-bench of Justice Amrita Sinha held:
Report filed by the CBI…shows ninety-six candidates who did not qualify Teacher Entrance Test (“TET”) 2014 but got appointment. A further list of forty-six candidates who were not trained as per TET 2014 examination has been annexed to the report. It appears that the ED has also prepared list of the selected suspected teachers whose names/roll numbers were found in the seized documents/digital records obtained from various accused persons. The list of the said candidates shall immediately be forwarded by the CBI and ED to the West Bengal Board of Primary Education for verification. The Board shall verify the credentials of the said candidates and if it appears that any of the candidates in the said list was appointed dehors the provisions of law, without requisite qualifications, and outside the merit list, then prompt necessary steps shall be taken against him/her.
Case: Sudip Raha v Jadavpur University & ors
In a plea challenging alleged administrative lapses and lack of security measures which led to the death of a first-year student due to ragging in Jadavpur University, the Calcutta High Court has observed that it is imperative to hear representatives of the student bodies.
In directing for the students to be added as parties to the PIL and observing that a University Campus could not be turned into a 'political battlefield', a division-bench of CJ TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya observed:
"Students must be heard. We will make them understand that you need to be proud to be alumni of this university. After 15 years, when they call you for alumni meet, they should come back with pleasant memories, not with horrific ones. They are young minds and will understand. It is not as if one becomes a senior and torture the junior. We are confident it can happen. Every institution has a bad patch, things will change and improve. You cannot convert this into a political battle. No political party can be allowed inside the campus. Any form of peaceful protest cannot be stopped but one that causes inconvenience to the public will have to be regulated. Police have enough powers to regulate such protests. Let the students be made party to these proceedings and matter be taken up on 5th September after affidavits have been filed."