State Orders Impacting Individual Rights Require Separate Legal Remedies: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has held that when a State authority's order is alleged to have impacted individual rights, each individual must pursue their legal remedy independently, and collective action in such cases is neither permissible nor maintainable. Brief Facts: Suklal Singh & Anr, Petitioners,...
The Calcutta High Court division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has held that when a State authority's order is alleged to have impacted individual rights, each individual must pursue their legal remedy independently, and collective action in such cases is neither permissible nor maintainable.
Brief Facts:
Suklal Singh & Anr, Petitioners, two individuals, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the second respondent, Sub Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964. The matter previously came before a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court through a similar petition filed by others. The Co-ordinate Bench, by an order, directed the second respondent to consider the Petitioners' case as outlined in the decision. Following this direction, the second respondent reviewed the issue and issued the impugned order declaring the Petitioners and others as encroachers on public land and ordering the recovery of possession from them.
The Petitioners, along with eight other individuals, challenged the impugned order by filing separate appeals before the statutory Appellate Authority under Section 10(4) of the 1964 Act. These appeals are still pending. Mr. Bhattacharyya, the Senior Counsel representing the Petitioners, argued that the writ petition should be entertained in a representative capacity on behalf of the other appellants as well as they share a common cause. He further contended that if the Petitioners are dispossessed from their land during the pendency of the appeal, their statutory right to appeal would be effectively nullified. Therefore, he sought interim protection for the Petitioners until the appeals are resolved.
Mr. Bhattacharyya also conteneded that there is constitutional obligation of the State to provide shelter to its citizens and argued that since the State has failed to fulfill this duty, the Petitioners and the other appellants should not be deprived of their shelter. He pointed out that the land in question is not required for any public purpose.
On the other hand, the State Counsel countered that the Petitioners and the other appellants have been identified as encroachers based on a report prepared by the jurisdictional Block Land & Land Reforms Officer (B.L. & L.R.O.). He argued that the Petitioners, as encroachers on public land, are not entitled to any protection.
Observations by the High Court:
The High Court noted that a previous writ petition had been filed by a few individual petitioners leading to an order by a Co-ordinate Bench. The High Court observed that this earlier writ petition did not have a representative capacity, as it was not filed as a public interest litigation but rather as an individual cause. In the writ petition, the High Court recognized that two individual petitioners were involved, each of whom had filed separate statutory appeals. It held that the cause presented in this writ petition, similar to the previous one, was an individual matter and not one suitable for collective action or public interest litigation.
The High Court held that when an order from a State authority is claimed to have affected individual rights, the individuals affected have their legal remedies which must be pursued independently. The High Court held that the writ petition should not and cannot be treated as having a representative capacity as per the prayer in the petition. The High Court further noted that the Petitioners already exercised their right to file statutory appeals, and they were entitled to be heard and to receive decisions according to the law in those appeals.
Mr. Bhattacharyya informed the High Court that a prayer for interim relief had already been made before the statutory appellate authority in the ongoing appeals. In light of this, the High Court directed the jurisdictional statutory appellate authority to consider and decide on the interim relief sought by the Petitioners. The appellate authority was instructed to conduct this exercise fairly and ensure that the Petitioners were given an opportunity to be heard, and to pass a reasoned order based on the merits of the case.
Case Title: Suklal Singh & Anr. -Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 21407 of 2024