Nominal Index Divyajot Singh Jendu v. Manikaran Analytics Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 20Sumit Roy v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 21Lakshi Ram Hembram @ Laxmiram Hembram v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 22Md. Israil v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 23Supratik Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 24Manik Das @Manik Chandra Das v. The...
Nominal Index
Divyajot Singh Jendu v. Manikaran Analytics Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 20
Sumit Roy v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 21
Lakshi Ram Hembram @ Laxmiram Hembram v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 22
Md. Israil v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 23
Supratik Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 24
Manik Das @Manik Chandra Das v. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 25
Sumana Layek v. State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 26
Sukanya Mirbahar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 27
Uttam Saha & Anr v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 28
Anubrata Mondal v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 29
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Sukanta Kumar Singha and Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 30
Union Of India and Others v. Ratna Sarkar 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 31
Surojit Mandal v. National Investigation Agency (NIA) 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 32
Ganesh Orang v. State of West Bengal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 33
Bimal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 34
Dabur India Limited v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 35
Tania Mukherjee & Ors v. State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 36
Tapan Saha v. State Election Commissioner & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 37
Srimanta Ghosh & Ors v. Debabrata Ghosh 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 38
Gaurav Purakayastha v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 39
Satya Narayan Banik & Ors v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 40
Abu Sohel v. The State West Bengal and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 41
Nivedita Basu v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 42
Sabita Roy v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 43
Ramaprasad Sarkar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 44
Rajib Chakraborty and Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 45
Manick Sardar v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 46
Manav Investment and Trading Co. Ltd v. DBS Bank India Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 47
West Bengal School Service Commission v. Sandeep Prasad and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 48
Rajib Paul v. The State of West Bengal and Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 49
Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Director, Alipore Zoological Garden & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 50
Anindita Mandal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 51
Md. Abdul Gani Ansari v. State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 52
Iti Pandit v. The Union of India and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 53
Pratap Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 54
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Optimal Power Synergy 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 55
Chandan Jana & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 56
Ashoke Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 57
Shueli Panda Mishra & Ors v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 58
Swadhin Kumar Sarkar v. Chandana Sarkar and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 59
Dipak Singha v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 60
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Divyajot Singh Jendu v. Manikaran Analytics Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 20
The Calcutta High Court held that before issuing summons to an accused under Section 204 of the CrPC, a Magistrate has to mandatorily hold an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC. Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee held that the scope of such enquiry under section 202 CrPC is limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defense that the accused may have. The Court therefore set aside an order of the concerned Magistrate issuing summons to the accused (residing outside its jurisdictional limits) after observing that the Magistrate had merely conducted an inquiry under Section 200 of the CrPC and not under Section 202 of the CrPC. "In the case under considering the learned Magistrate did not hold any inquiry under section 202 of Cr. P.C though it is apparent from the complaint that the accused resided outside the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint has been lodged. Learned Magistrate on the other hand held an inquiry under section 200 of Cr. P.C simpliciter and only examined the complainant and no other witness or document", the Court observed.
Case Title: Sumit Roy v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 21
The Calcutta High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to not arrest Sumit Roy, secretary to All India Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee, during his appearance before the agency in the ongoing investigation the alleged coal scam in West Bengal. The CBI had issued a notice dated January 25, 2022 to Roy, directing him to appear before the investigating authorities on February 1 at 11 am. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed, "I am inclined that upon the petitioner resuming the investigation before the Central Bureau of Investigation and cooperating with the Investigating Authorities in terms of the impugned notice, the petitioner shall not be arrested in terms of the impugned notice requesting the petitioner to appear on 1 February, 2022. I make it clear that no other issue is being decided in this petition. In view of the fact that the matter has been heard at a belated stage, this limited order is passed only in respect of the impugned notice dated 25 January, 2022." Further considering that the matter was being heard after the petitioner has practically complied with the impugned notice, the Court opined that there appears to be no immediate threat or apprehension of the petitioner being arrested on Tuesday in terms of the impugned notice.
Case Title: Lakshi Ram Hembram @ Laxmiram Hembram v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 22
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the testimony of a sole eyewitness with respect to an accused cannot be ignored solely because her evidence with respect to the other co-accused persons has been found to be unreliable. A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed that the principal of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India with respect to appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the Bench upheld the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellant for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC on the basis of the testimony of the sole eye witness (PW 5). The Court held, "In India, the principal 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' does not apply in the matter of appreciation of evidence. When the Court is called upon to assess the evidence of a witness, it becomes its bounden duty to assess the evidence of the witness on the anvil of probability and separate the kernel of truth from the chaff of embellishment. The trial court has rightly assessed the evidence of PW 5 and upon ignoring her embellished effort to implicate other associates of the appellant in the crime, correctly relied on the role of the appellant as the sole assailant of the deceased."
Case Title: Md. Israil v. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 23
The Calcutta High Court observed that there is existing social stigma associated with the offence of rape and accordingly held that a delay in lodging FIR in cases of such nature would not vitiate the prosecution case. The Court accordingly upheld the conviction of a man for raping a minor victim aged 14 years who had subsequently given birth to a still born child. A Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattnayak observed that it is apparent that the victim did not inform anyone about the crime due to continuous threats by the appellant and that she had proceeded to lodge the police complaint only after her pregnancy was discovered. "I am also not unmindful of social stigma attached to the nature of the offence which might have also attributed to the delay in lodging FIR. Even otherwise, the mere factum of delay in filing complaint in regard to an offence of this nature by itself would not be fatal so as to vitiate the prosecution case", the Court underscored. Further the Court observed that there is no evidence of concoction of a false version or embellishment and accordingly dismissed contentions pertaining to the delay lodging of an FIR.
Case Title: Supratik Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 24
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a Magistrate while discharging an accused under Section 245(2) CrPC has to record reasons showing that no case has been made out and thus cannot simply order for such discharge on the ground that the complainant has failed to show cause by not verifying and affixing proper signature on the application. Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee observed, "In my considered view it would be a legal necessity on the part of learned Magistrate under section 245 (2) of the Cr. P.C to consider and record reasons that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted would warrant his conviction. In absence of such evidence the accused may be discharged. I do not find any such finding or observation made by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order. It appears that learned Magistrate has been swayed by the sole reason that he did not find the cause shown by the complainant to be in proper form."
Case Title: Manik Das @Manik Chandra Das v. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 25
While interpreting Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Calcutta High Court has recently opined that 'reasonable grounds' to believe that the accused has not committed an offence must be more than mere 'prima facie' grounds. Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed, "It is axiometic that 'reasonable grounds' means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. It requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates a more stricter approach than an application for bail sans the NDPS Act. After careful scrutiny of section 37 of the NDPS Act 1985 we find that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained in section 439 Cr.P.C, but is also subject to the limitations placed by section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause", the Court underscored further.
Case Title: Sumana Layek v. State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 26
The Calcutta High Court has recently come down heavily on the former Chairman of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBCSSC) while setting aside an order issued by the former Chairman depriving a candidate for the recruitment of assistant teachers in secondary and higher secondary classes in the State of her right to counselling. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay while referring to the rules for recruitment as envisaged under the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Posts of Teachers for Classes IX and X in Secondary and Higher Secondary Classes) Rules, 2016 (2016 Rules) observed with dismay, "It is clear from the order that the order is an incomplete, suppressing and evasive one. The order is motivated to deprive the petitioner of her valuable accrued Right of counselling. The Commission is mandated under Rule 16 (1) of the above mentions Rules of 2016 to hold counselling. The order has deliberately tried to hoodwink the court and other persons, if possible, which has not been possible because of the scrutinizing eyes of the petitioners and of the court." Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Commission and further directed the former Chairman of WBCSSC to pay costs to the tune of Rs 20,000 from his own pocket and not form the fund of WBCSSC.
Case Title: Sukanya Mirbahar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 27
In an interesting development, the Calcutta High Court directed an NGO to return a French Mastiff dog named 'Bruno' to its rightful owners after the dog had gone missing and was subsequently kept in the custody of the concerned NGO. The NGO was however allowed to visit and inspect the dog at least once in a month. The NGO Debasree Roy Foundation had deposed before the Court that the dog had not been treated well by the owners and was thus not in a very good state of heath. Accordingly, the NGO had opposed the plea of the petitioners to take back custody of the dog. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, "Bruno shall be returned to its owners, i.e. the writ petitioner and her family in course of the day by the Debasree Roy Foundation. The writ petitioner unconditionally undertakes before this Court that she will take good care of the French Mastiff Dog, 'Bruno', physically and mentally".
Case Title: Uttam Saha & Anr v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 28
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that powers under Section 311 of CrPC have been conferred upon the Court to serve the ends of justice and may be exercised at any stage of inquiry, trial or proceeding for reaching to a just decision. Accordingly, it proceeded to allow the petitioners in the present murder case to adduce evidence on their plea of alibi after closing of evidence. Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee observed, "One cannot be oblivious of the fact that when a substantial legal right is claimed by the litigants, the court has to consider its implication and to exercise its jurisdiction judiciously for meeting the ends of justice...their plea of alibi needs to be admitted in evidence if they are in a position to adduce substantive evidence on that count and stand the test of cross-examination. Denial of such right would lead to miscarriage of justice."
Case Title: Anubrata Mondal v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 29
The Calcutta High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to not take any coercive measures against Trinamool Congress Birbhum district president Anubrata Mondal without the leave of the Court. Mondal had moved the High Court seeking protection from arrest pursuant to the issuance of a CBI notice directing him to appear before its investigating team for the ongoing probe into the West Bengal post poll violence cases. He had been summoned by the CBI as a witness at the NIT camp office in Durgapur in neighbouring Paschim Bardhaman district at 11am on Thursday in connection with a murder case at Alambazar in Birbhum which is alleged to have a connection with the post-poll violence in West Bengal. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha directed the petitioner to appear before the CBI at its Durgapur office and corporate with the ongoing investigation and further observed, "In the event of any such fresh notice, the petitioner shall appear and cooperate in such investigation. However, no coercive measures shall be taken by the CBI against the petitioner without the leave of this Court."
Also Read: Territorial Limitations Of Section 160 CrPC Apply Even To CBI Investigations: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Sukanta Kumar Singha and Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 30
The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company (WBSEDCL) to pay an amount to the tune of Rs.6,07,000 to a consumer for unauthorised disconnection of electricity supply due to which the consumer had suffered unnecessary harassment. Calling the conduct of WBSEDCL as 'deplorable', Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed, "In cases such as the present one, it is the gross laches of the Distribution Licensee which compelled the respondent no.1, a consumer, to suffer unnecessary ignominy and harassment..As far as the conduct of the Distribution Licensee in the present case is concerned, the same is deplorable and the consumer was compelled to run from pillar to post at every point of time." Accordingly, the Court directed, "Hence, there was no scope of reducing the total amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day, as calculated by the Ombudsman. Rather, in exercise of this court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order of the Ombudsman is modified to the effect that the Distribution Licensee shall pay compensation not to the tune of Rs.1,21,400/- as awarded but will pay a total amount of Rs.6,07,000/- to the consumer-respondent no.1 within a month from date, deducting any amount, if already paid pursuant to the impugned order of the Ombudsman."
Case Title: Union Of India and Others v. Ratna Sarkar
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 31
The Calcutta High Court observed that the benefit of family pension cannot be extended to a widowed daughter of a pensioner who was married at the time of the death of her father/mother. The Court held that a daughter who became widowed after the demise after her father/mother does not possess any fundamental or statutory right to claim family pension. The issue in consideration before a Bench comprising Justices Harish Tandon and Rabindranath Samanta was whether a daughter of a pensioner who was married, but became widowed after the death of the pensioner is entitled to family pension. Answering in the negative, the Court observed, "As the legislative intent is demonstrated, the scheme of family pension never included a daughter of a pensioner who was married at the time of the death of the pensioner..A daughter who became widowed after the demise after her father/mother does not possess any fundamental or statutory right to claim family pension. In the absence of any legislation in this regard, the benefit of family pension cannot be extended to a daughter of a family pensioner who was married at the time of the death of her father/mother. It will be unwise on the part of this Court to exercise its extraordinary or discretionary power to come to any inference contrary to the policy decision of the Government."
Case Title: Surojit Mandal v. National Investigation Agency (NIA)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 32
The Calcutta High Court on Friday observed that Section 44 (3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) mandate Courts to undertake measures to protect the identity of a protected witness and accordingly directed the concerned Trial Court to to redact the name, address and other particulars of the protected witness from the records immediately. A Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak noted that in the instant case, the statement of the protected witness recorded under Section 164 CrPC discloses his indignity. Opining that such disclosure of indignity defeats the provision of Section 44 (3) of the UAPA, the Bench observed, "Sub-section (3) of section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, inter alia, provides the measures which the court may undertake to protect the identity of a protected witness which includes avoiding to mention the name and address of the witness in its orders or judgment and any record of the case accessible to public. Statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the witnesss is required to be served upon the accused. Hence, disclosure of identity of the protected witness in such statement clearly defeats the purpose of the aforesaid provision of law." The Court further directed the Trial Court to exercise more caution in ensuring that the indignity of protected witnesses are not divulged.
Case Title: Ganesh Orang v. State of West Bengal & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 33
The Calcutta High Court observed that lacunae in the prosecution case due to patent contradictions or inherent improbabilities cannot be cured by resorting to statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). A Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak observed, "Glaring lacunae in the prosecution case undermines the credibility of the factual foundations which require to be prima facie established to attract the statutory presumption. When the primary facts relating to time, place and circumstances constituting the offence are not prima facie established due to patent contradictions or inherent improbabilities, such lacuane cannot be cured by resorting to statutory presumptions in law". Accordingly, the Court acquitted the appellant by observing, "In order to attract the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act the factual foundations with regard to the ingredients of the offence under Section 6 of the said Act require to be established in the first place..in the light of the contradictory and inconsistent versions with regard to the allegation of rape levelled against the appellant, the factual foundations of the prosecution case has not been laid on the basis of preponderance of probabilities so as to attract the statutory presumption and the appellant is therefore entitled to an order of acquittal."
Case Title: Bimal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 34
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a contempt petition filed against the State Election Commission (SEC) alleging that it had failed to comply with an earlier order of the Court directing the SEC to consider postponing elections to four municipal corporations for a short period of 4 to 6 weeks in the wake of the rising number of Covid-19 cases. The Court vide order dated January 14 had directed the SEC to consider postponing the conduct of the upcoming municipal elections in Siliguri, Chandernagore, Bidhannagar and Asansol for a short period of 4 to 6 weeks in the wake of the 'galloping speed with which the COVID cases are increasing' in the State of West Bengal. Thereafter, the State Election Commission had decided to postpone the date of election by 3 weeks and had notified that elections to the four municipal corporation would take place on February 12. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed, "The period of 4 to 6 weeks mentioned in the order was only suggestive leaving it upon to the State Election Commission to take a decision in this regard within a time bound period..Having regard to the nature of the order passed by this Court and considering the fact that there was no positive direction in the order of this Court, we are of the opinion that there is no deliberate non-compliance or violation of the order of this Court by the respondents herein, hence no case for initiating the contempt proceedings is made out."
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt Ltd
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 35
The Calcutta High Court permanently injuncted four advertisements by the makers of Baidyanath Chyawanprash Special for being disparaging to all other brands of Chyawanprash including Dabur Chyawanprash. Justice Shekhar B Saraf was adjudicating upon a plea moved by Dabur seeking an injunction against the uploading of five advertisements that had allegedly disparaged the goodwill and reputation of its trademark. "Precedents cited by both parties make it clear that true statements can be made even if it denigrates the rival's product, but false and misleading statements cannot be allowed under the guise of free speech. In light of the same, this video advertisement is disparaging and an action from this Court would lie. In light of the reasons provided above, this video advertisement is permanently injuncted", the Court observed. The Court further underscored that the concerned advertisements are misleading and accordingly opined, "A misleading advertising, as the term implies, is one that deceives, manipulates, or is likely to deceive or manipulate the consumer. These commercials have the potential to influence consumer's purchase preference in the market and it also harms its rivals, hence, they must be used with caution. There should be a balance between the right of commercial speech and the interest of public and competitors. In the present case, the video advertisement is, to a large extent, misleading".
Case Title: Tania Mukherjee & Ors v. State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 36
The Calcutta High Court observed that service in Specialized Units would not amount to serving in "remote and/or difficult areas" for the purpose of qualifying for the stipulated 40% in-service quota in Post Graduate Medical counselling for seats in Government/private colleges in West Bengal. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon a plea moved by 53 graduate doctors who are serving as Medical Officers in different hospitals in the State and had contended that they should be eligible for availing the 40% in-service quota for presently serving in Specialized Units. "This Court recognizes the commitment shown by the in-service doctors who render 24x7 service in these Specialized Units. However, to include service in such Specialized Units within the definition of "rural and/or difficult areas" would amount to making in-roads into the policy frame-work of the State Government which a Writ Court should normally hesitate to do unless compelling reasons exist. A policy decision is not a perpetual no-go area and a Writ Court can certainly interfere in fit cases including where the policy is not backed by legislative competence or where there is an excessive delegation of essential legislative functions or an infraction of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India", the Court observed.
Case Title: Tapan Saha v. State Election Commissioner & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 37
The Calcutta High Court while hearing a plea alleging issuance of fake Scheduled caste certificate to a candidate contesting from a scheduled caste constituency, imposed costs to the tune of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner for suppressing the fact that he himself was also a contesting candidate in the concerned Bidhannagar municipal polls. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed, "The fact now revealed by the respondents shows that the petition is by one contesting candidate against another. This fact has changed the entire complexion of the case. Hence, we dismiss this writ petition by imposing costs of 50,000/- which is to be deposited by the petitioner with the Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today." Opining that the conduct of the petitioner amounts to 'gross suppression of facts', the Court further underscored, "The petitioner has suppressed this fact in the petition that he is one of the candidates contesting election of concerned municipal corporation. This amounts to gross suppression of fact and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs on the sole ground of suppressing the fact."
19. Running Of Mill By Neighbour Causing Rattling Noise Amounts To Actionable Nuisance
Case Title: Srimanta Ghosh & Ors v. Debabrata Ghosh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 38
The Calcutta High Court has observed that while it is acceptable that every little discomfort or inconvenience cannot be brought into the category of an actionable nuisance, however if such inconvenience or annoyance exceeds all reasonable limits then the same would amount to an actionable nuisance. A Bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee was adjudicating upon a plea wherein the plaintiff had contended that the defendant had been running a mill in the adjoining plot which caused rattling noise and vibration thereby causing discomfort to him and his wife. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court observed, "While it is acceptable that every little discomfort or inconvenience cannot be brought on to the category of an actionable nuisance but if such inconvenience or annoyance exceeds all reasonable limits then the same would amount to an actionable nuisance. Frequent and loud noise has been proved to trigger stress and anxiety in both adult and children – more often affecting mental health. A constant cacophony in neighbour's land causing disquietude in one's own abode is beyond a common man's realm of expected endurance."
Case Title: Gaurav Purakayastha v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 39
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to ensure that conduct of physical classes for Class VIII students in the State should resume only for vaccinated children and that children who are below 15 years of age i.e. are born after the year 2007 should be permitted to attend online classes. It may be noted that the Central government had issued a notification stipulating that children aged 15 years or more i.e. all those whose birth year is 2007 or before shall be eligible for Covid-19 vaccination with effect from January 3, 2022. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj dismissed the plea on the ground that there arises 'serious question about the locus of the petitioner' and further observed that the plea filed is not supported by adequate materials and documents. The Bench further opined that since one PIL is already pending before the Court regarding the issue of reopening of schools, entertaining the instant petition would result in multiplicity of proceedings. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application along with all relevant materials as so advised.
Case Title: Satya Narayan Banik & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 40
The Calcutta High Court observed that the provisions for disqualification of directors due to non-filing of balance sheets and annual returns as envisaged under Section 164(2) and Section 167(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 is aimed at ensuring probity and the highest standard of governance in both private and public companies. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a case wherein the petitioners had been disqualified as directors of a company one M/s. Hahnemann International Pvt. Ltd pursuant to Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 for not filing balance sheets and annual returns for a continuous period of three years from the year 2014-15. Opining that such a conduct of the petitioners amounts to deliberate and wilful negligence, the Court underscored, "This Court is of the view that the object and purposes of Section 164 and 167, as amended is to ensure probity and the highest standard of governance in Companies both public and private. A failure to file balance sheet and the annual returns for three consecutive years amounts to deliberate and wilful negligence. The public at large dealing with such companies cannot be put to the uncertainty, whim and fancy of recalcitrant directors. After all the requirements and compliances mandated under the Companies Act, are not only for the benefit of the shareholders of a particular company but also for the public at large, which rely upon such compliances, in assessing the conduct of and in deciding their relations with such companies." The Court held further, "The object and purpose of Section 164(2) and 167(1) is indeed laudable. It is aimed at ensuring good governance and maintenance of high standards of probity and protection of the interest of Shareholders. Transparency in the activities of Companies is very vital for ensuring an enduring business atmosphere in an economy."
Case Title: Abu Sohel v. The State West Bengal and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 41
Opining on the established principle of availability of alternate remedy, the Calcutta High Court observed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be filed for adjudicating upon a grievance pertaining to the non-registration of FIR by police authorities on the basis of a complaint made. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed while dismissing a PIL, "The grievance is in respect of non-registration of FIR on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner therefore it is a grievance of personal nature, which cannot be agitated in a PIL. That apart, the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy seeking direction to register an FIR or to carry out the investigation." The Court further underscored that if the petitioner has any grievance in respect of non- registration of the FIR or improper investigation, then the proper remedy available to him is to take recourse to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Case Title: Nivedita Basu v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 42
In a significant development, the Calcutta High Court allowed termination of 34 weeks 6 days old foetus of a woman after taking into consideration that there are remote chances of the child surviving or leading a normal life. The Court also underscored that there are risks to the health of both the mother and the child if medical termination of the pregnancy is not permitted. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a plea moved by the petitioner seeking medical termination of the pregnancy on the ground that a large number of medical complications have been detected by three medical practitioners which are affecting the health of the petitioner as well as the foetus. "The medical report it is clear and explicit, that there are remote chances of the child being born out of the instant pregnancy surviving or leading ay normal life. The risks to the mother as well as the child are also highlighted in no uncertain terms. Considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances, this Court permits the petitioner to medically terminate her pregnancy at an authorized hospital and/or medical facility", the Court observed.
Case Title: Sabita Roy v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 43
The Calcutta High Court expressed displeasure at the conduct of the police authorities of Alipurduar Police Station in not registering an FIR despite receipt of complaint with regards to non-payment of compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, "This Court, therefore, takes exception to the conduct of the Alipurduar Police Station in not registering FIR." The Court further underscored, "Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since after receipt of a complaint as regards the commission of a cognizable offence, the Alipurduar Police Station was bound to register FIR and commence investigation, as per the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs Govt. Of U.P. & Ors reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1."In the instant case, the petitioner had preferred a complaint dated September 3, 2021 addressed to the Alipurduar Police Station with regards to the non-payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A complaint in this regard had also been filed by the office of the District Magistrate, Alipurduar on September 4, 2021 with the Kotwali and Alipurduar Police Stations.
25. Calcutta High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Removal Of WB Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar
Case Title: Ramaprasad Sarkar v. Union of India
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 44
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a PIL praying for a direction to the Central government to remove Jagdeep Dhankhar as the Governor of West Bengal, claiming that he was acting as the 'mouthpiece of the Bharatiya Janata Party'. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj on Friday placed reliance on Article 361 of the Constitution which stipulates that a Governor cannot be made answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. The Bench also referred to Article 156 of the Constitution which states that the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President for a term of five years. "We find that the writ petition is based upon some tweets, one letter of the Governor and the publications made by one newspaper. We are not satisfied that the material placed along with the petition furnishing any ground to entertain the petition or to issue any such direction to the respondent No. 1 as prayed in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed", the Court ruled.
Case Title: Rajib Chakraborty and Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 45
The Calcutta High Court held that considering the abatement in the Covid-19 pandemic and the reopening of schools across the State, its earlier direction stipulating 20 percent reduction in fees charged by private schools would cease to exist from February 16, 2022 onwards with regards to physical classes. The Court observed that schools and other educational institutions shall be permitted to charge fees according to their policy and arrangement with the students from February 16, 2022 onwards. A Bench comprising Justice IP Mukherji and Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon a bunch of PILs filed by aggrieved parents seeking a partial remission of school fees for the session 2021-2022 due to the ongoing pandemic owing to which students are attending schools only through virtual mediums. The Bench vide its order dated October 13, 2020, had slashed the fees charged by private schools in the State by 20% due to the ongoing pandemic." "Till 31st March, 2022 or until further orders, whichever is earlier, no coercive action like expulsion of any student from the school, withholding of admit card to sit for any Board or school examination, withholding of mark-sheets or certificates on the ground of default in payment of school fees, shall be taken by the schools or other educational institutions covered by this litigation against any student", the Court directed further.
Case Title: Manick Sardar v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 46
The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld the conviction of a man for raping a 7 year old girl by observing that mere penetration is sufficient to prove the offence of rape and that presence of injuries on the body of the victim is not necessary. A Bench comprising Justices Bivas Pattanayak and Joymalya Bagchi observed, "It has also been strenuously argued that the allegation of rape on a seven year old minor is improbable as no injuries were found on the body of the victim including her private parts. Her hymen was intact. It is trite law mere penetration is sufficient to prove the offence of rape. It is not necessary that penetration must be of such nature that it would cause injuries or rupture the hymen..In the aforesaid factual matrix, it is clear that there was a slight penetration into the private parts of the victim, which though sufficient to constitute rape, did not result in rupture of hymen." "Thus, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case has fully been proved beyond doubt and cannot be rendered improbable due to absence of injuries being noted on the body of the victim", the Court opined further.
Case Title: Manav Investment and Trading Co. Ltd v. DBS Bank India Ltd
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 47
The Calcutta High Court observed that a notice of sale by a pawnee under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act) must contain a 'positive assertion' indicating the intention of the pawnee to dispose of the security. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed while enumerating on the requirements of such a notice of sale under Section 176 of the Act, "A notice of the character contemplated by Sec. 176 cannot be implied. Such notice has to be clear and specific in language indicating the intention of the pawnee to dispose of the security. What is contemplated by Sec. 176 is not merely a notice but a 'reasonable' notice, meaning thereby a notice of intended sale of the security by the creditor within a certain date so as to afford an opportunity to the debtor to pay up the amount within the time mentioned in the notice." Opining on the nature of statements envisaged in the notices of sale, the Court further observed, "It is noticeable that in both of the clauses, the respondent bank states that they shall have the right to enforce the pledge. However, I don't find an unequivocal statement stating that the shares shall be sold. In my view, there is a clear distinction between having a right of sale and intention to sell. The very philosophy of Section 176 and 177 is that a protection is given to the pawnor with regard to having an opportunity to redeem the shares upon a proper and reasonable notice being given to him."
Case Title: West Bengal School Service Commission v. Sandeep Prasad and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 48
The Calcutta High Court extended the time granted to the Court appointed inquiry committee to submit its report in respect of the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBSSC). A Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta observed on Monday, "We extend the time by 4 months from date to complete the enquiry" The Division Bench took into account that substantial progress had been made by the inquiry committee and that a good number of people were left to be interrogated by the committee for disclosure of facts. Hence, the Bench extended the time granted to the committee for filing of the inquiry report by 4 months. The Bench further expunged the adverse remarks made by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay in its order dated February 9 against the inquiry committee pursuant to the request made by the concerned counsels. The Bench ordered that the adverse remarks should not form a part of the record and shall be treated as expunged.
Case Title: Rajib Paul v. The State of West Bengal and Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 49
The Calcutta High Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe into alleged extortion of truckers at Haldia Port and observed that "syndicates" have a stranglehold on most businesses and commerce in the state. The Court thus stayed the ongoing investigation by the State police and furthermore rejected the State's plea to allow a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to be entrusted with the investigation. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, "The investigation is being carried out in a perfunctory manner. The faith of the public at large in such investigation could be eroded. There is therefore strong and prima facie case made out for transfer of the case from the State to the CBI. " The Court directed the CBI to collect all the case material including case diary and all evidence from the Haldia Police and commence investigation. However, the Court ordered that final report shall not be filed by the CBI without the leave of this Court.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Director, Alipore Zoological Garden & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 50
The Calcutta High Court disposed of a plea pertaining to the alleged entry of outsiders inside the Kolkata Alipore Zoo premises by directing the concerned police authorities to investigate into the matter and submit a report to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of one month. The Court was adjudicating upon a plea moved by BJP leader Rakesh Kumar Singh alleging that on January 24 about 600-700 persons had forcefully entered the Zoo premises even though the premises were not open to the public due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Justice Mantha opined that the claims of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction and accordingly observed, "This Court is of the view that the claims and grievances of the petitioner as recorded hereinabove, cannot be dealt with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." The Court further directed the concerned police authorities to investigate into the complaints lodged in an impartial manner and submit a report to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of one month. "The Zoo Administration and police are ordered not to take sides and be impartial in dealing with any situation inside or outside the Zoo premises. The complaint filed by the police shall be investigated and suitable report be submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of one month from date. The complainants may take appropriate steps against such final report as they may be advised in accordance with law", the Court directed.
Case Title: Anindita Mandal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 51
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a plea seeking compassionate appointment by observing that the mother of the petitioner is a teacher of a school and thus there is no immediate crisis faced by the family members. The petitioner one Anindita Mandal had sought compassionate appointment on the ground that her father had passed away when she was ten years old. The mother of the petitioner is working as a teacher in a school. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay observed, "The compassionate appointment is given to tie over immediate crisis faced by the family members for untimely death of the bread earner. It is not a case where the family is facing crisis to arrange even two square meals as the mother of the petitioner is working". The Court ruled that the instant case would not come within the the policy of the State for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Md. Abdul Gani Ansari v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 52
The Calcutta High Court ordered the cancellation of appointment of six assistant teachers in the Murshidabad district after noting that they had been illegally appointed pursuant to the illegal recommendation of the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). The Court was adjudicating upon a plea alleging illegal appointments pertaining to the West Bengal State Level Selection Test (SLST) for Class 9 and Class 10 mathematics teachers. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay observed that the illegally recruited candidates do not have any 'legal right' to o work as assistant teachers in the schools pursuant to the letter written by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Murshidabad dated February 8, 2021 to the President of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Furthermore, the Court noted that the WBSCC had stated that the illegally recruited candidates had been recommended by the Commission due to a 'mistake'. Opining that this was a 'deliberate illegal action' on the part of the Commission and not a mistake, the Court further remarked, "Though the School Service Commission has taken shelter under the expression 'mistake', this court wholly disbelieves such shroud of the Commission now placed on its face. This cannot be a mistake. These are deliberate illegal action otherwise the wait-listed candidates in serial nos. 229, 242, 250, 265, 289 and 302 could not have been recommended selectively by the Commission."
Case Title: Iti Pandit v. The Union of India and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 53
In a significant development, a victim girl who had been trafficked to Rangpur, Bangladesh has been rescued and reunited with her parents back in India. The Court had earlier directed the Central government to take concrete measures to ensure immediate repatriation of the victim to India. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha recorded his appreciation and gratitude towards the efforts put in by the High Commission of India at Dhaka and High Commission of Bangladesh at Kolkata in helping with the recovery of the victim girl. He further appreciated the efforts of other stakeholders by observing, "In the present case as well, this Court had attempted to employ all the faculties available to it, to rescue the victim, a little girl, from her traffickers, and to reunite her with her parents. Its efforts were complemented by a host of individuals and institutions, and the Court expresses its immense gratitude to the all those involved in the rescue efforts." The Court further averred that the writ jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts under Article 32 and Article 226 forms the life- blood of the Constitution as it effectuates and enforces the Fundamental Rights of citizens, in the absence of which, the existence of those rights would be in vain. "This case has proven that territorial and other limitations are easily defeated in the face of an overwhelming determination of find suitable solutions. This Court hopes that this will set a precedent for future cases where Courts or other authorities feel helpless and tied down by such similar difficulties. In the words of two famous people, "It always seems impossible until its done.", and "Perseverance is not a long race: it is many short races one after the other", the Court further underscored.
Case Title: Pratap Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 54
The Calcutta High Court directed the State Election Commission (SEC) to hold a joint meeting with the officials of the West Bengal government within 24 hours and decide as to whether deployment of central paramilitary forces will be required for the peaceful conduct of the upcoming elections to the remaining 108 municipalities which is scheduled to take place on February 27. The Court underscored that in the event it is decided that central forces will not be deployed then the State Election Commissioner would be held personally liable to ensure that no violence takes place and there is peaceful conduct of elections. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed, "We direct that the Commissioner, State Election Commission will collect information in respect of the conditions prevailing in each of the Municipalities where the elections are scheduled and will hold the joint meeting with the Home Secretary of the State and the Director General and Inspector General of the Police within 24 hours and will examine the ground situation of each of the 108 Municipalities and take a decision in writing in respect of deployment of paramilitary forces by mentioning the relevant circumstances in support of his decision to deploy/not to deploy the paramilitary forces". The Court noted that although it has been alleged that BJP candidates have been prevented from filing their nomination papers however neither the names of those candidates have been disclosed nor have their supporting affidavits been filed. It was further averred that in respect of the already concluded elections to 4 municipalities, conflicting material has been placed on record about the alleged violence.
Also Read: Calcutta HC Reserves Judgment In BJP's Plea Alleging Large Scale Violence During WB Municipal Polls
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Optimal Power Synergy
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 55
The Calcutta High Court had the opportunity to expound on the requirements that need to be fulfilled before a Court can revisit a judgment under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed that 'an error apparent on the face of the record' is an error which would be self- evident and obvious even at first glance. It was further enumerated that Order XLVII does not permit reappraisal of the merits of the matter and thus determination of such an error should not involve a long-drawn process of reasoning on points requiring a contested hearing. "The sub-text of Order XLVII Rule 1(1) is that the error can be corrected without clamour; the parties being on the same page that the correction of the error would not alter the decree, subject to the importance and the new-ness of the evidence which is subsequently discovered", the Court averred further.
Case Title: Chandan Jana & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 56
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a petition filed by BJP candidates contesting in the upcoming West Bengal Municipal elections, seeking police protection from the State so that they get a fair chance to compete in the elections. The Court noted that several discrepancies had been found in the allegations levelled and further labelled such allegations to be an 'election gimmick'.Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed, "There is a fair chance that the representation, at least in respect of some of the candidates, might very well be an election gimmick more than a genuine grievance being expressed before a Court of Law". Opining that there are several discrepancies in the complaints filed by the BJP candidates, the Court observed further, "Looking into the specific allegations made by the writ petitioners in the representation given in pursuance of the order of the coordinate Bench, as compared to their initial complaints and allegations made in the writ petition, several discrepancies are noted."
Case Title: Ashoke Ghosh v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 57
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that non-examination of a minor child who was in the control and custody of an accused would not adversely affect the prosecution's case as it is natural for her to be subjected to undue influence or tutoring by the accused. In the instant case, the appellant had been convicted of murdering his wife and their 5 year old minor child was deemed to be a vital witness. It was alleged by the defence that non-examination of the minor child by the prosecution casts an adverse inference on the prosecution's case. Rejecting such a contention, a Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak observed, "It is trite law a child is ordinarily prone to tutoring. When a minor witness was in the control and custody of an accused it is all but natural that she would be subjected to undue influence and/or tutoring by the accused and, therefore, the prosecution may consider it unsafe to examine her. It is for the prosecution chose its own witnesses to prove the case". Opining further that non-examination of a vulnerable witness would not draw an adverse inference, the Court further stated, "If circumstances in a case like the present one give rise to an impression that a vulnerable witness is under the malefic influence of an accused, it would give sufficient justification to the prosecution not to examine her. Such course should not cast an adverse influence on its case."
Case Title: Shueli Panda Mishra & Ors v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 58
The Calcutta High Court directed the State government to extend police protection to BJP candidates contesting in the upcoming West Bengal Municipal elections by providing one Armed Police Officer to each candidate subject to payment of costs by the candidates themselves. The BJP candidates had preferred an appeal before the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj against the decision of a Single Bench that had dismissed such a prayer seeking police protection on the ground that there were several discrepancies in the allegations of intimidation and threats levelled by the BJP candidates. The Division Bench directed, "..we direct that all the appellants will be extended police protection by the respondent State by providing one Armed Police Officer each subject to payment of cost by the appellants in accordance with law. While assessing the cost the authority concerned will keep in mind that the protection has been extended to for safety of the candidates in the election, therefore, the cost at the minimum will be assessed".
Case Title: Swadhin Kumar Sarkar v. Chandana Sarkar and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 59
The Calcutta High Court dismissed an election petition of a BJP candidate after reprimanding him for his lackadaisical approach in handling the matter and further observing that it is essential that expeditious disposal of trial of election petitions take place for the smooth functioning of the legislature. Justice Amrita Sinha was adjudicating upon an election petition moved by a BJP candidate who had contested elections from 54-Baishnabnagar Assembly Constituency in the General Assembly Elections of West Bengal which took place in May 2021. Opining that the time period prescribed under Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act) is extremely essential for the purpose of conclusion of trial in an election petition, the Court underscored, "Time limit as prescribed in the Act is extremely essential for the purpose of conclusion of trial in an election petition, otherwise the returned candidate and the members of the constituency will remain in suspense with regard to their elected candidate and the smooth functioning of the legislature will suffer. Showing any leniency to the petitioner will be against the every object and purpose of expeditious disposal of trial of election petition. Spending any further time for trial of the present petition will amount to sheer wastage of valuable judicial hours which the Court ought not permit to do."
Case Title: Dipak Singha v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 60
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that penetration even of the slightest degree is necessary to establish the offence of rape and accordingly held that the appellant should be convicted for the offence of attempt to rape instead of the offence of rape. A Bench comprising Justices Bivas Pattanayak and Joymalya Bagchi was adjudicating upon a case wherein the appellant had been convicted for raping a victim girl aged around 11 years. The Division Bench observed that the evidence on record shows that no case of penetration has been deposed either by the victim or other witnesses and accordingly held, "It is settled law penetration even of the slightest degree is necessary to establish the offence of rape. An analysis of the evidence on record shows no case of penetration has been deposed either by the victim or other witnesses. Although absence of injuries or non-rupture of hymen is not a sine qua non to prove the offence of rape, in the factual matrix of the case where the victim herself states that the appellant attempted to rape her absence of injuries in her private parts corroborate the conclusion that the case was one of attempt to commit rape."
Important Developments
Case Title: Sudipta Bhattacharyya v. Visva-Bharati & Ors
The Calcutta High Court imposed costs to the tune of Rs 10,000 on the authorities of Visva-Bharati University, Santiniketan for its repeated failure to file an affidavit-in-opposition in a case pertaining to initiation of departmental proceedings against a professor of the University on the basis of allegations of sexual harassment. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya on Friday noted that the University had failed to file its affidavit-in-opposition despite given three prior opportunities to do so. Accordingly, the Court recorded in its order, "It appears from the records that the University was to file its affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks from the order dated 25th September, 2020. The time to file the affidavit-in- opposition was extended by another order dated 6th January, 2021 by which the University was to file its affidavit-in-opposition within 20th January, 2021." Thereafter, the Court directed the University authorities to file its affidavit-in-opposition within 3 weeks and further ordered the authorities to pay costs amounting to Rs 10,000 to the Bharat Sevasram Sangha, Kolkata within 2 weeks. The petitioner was also directed to file its reply within 2 weeks thereafter.
2. Calcutta High Court Directs State To Disclose Number Of Pending Cases Under SC/ST Act In WB
Case Title: Thaddeus Lakra and Ors v. State of West Bengal and Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the State government as well as the High Court administration to file an affidavit disclosing the existing number of pending cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) in the State as on January 31, 2022. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition alleging that land belonging to impoverished members of the Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribe community are being forcefully seized by miscreants. Accordingly, the Bench directed, "Learned Advocate General for State as also learned counsel for respondent 6 are directed to file affidavit disclosing pending figures of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as on 31st January, 2022".
Case Title: Subhas Datta v. Local Military Authority and Ors
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions for regular maintenance and preservation of the Brigade Parade Ground and adjoining greens popularly known as the Maidan which is considered to be the lungs of the city. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was apprised by the petitioner Subhas Datta, an activist by profession that the Maidan ground and surrounding areas constitute a Heritage Zone and that the State government should take measures to preserve them. Accordingly, the Bench on Monday directed the State government to file its affidavit-in-opposition before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on March 15. The petitioner was further directed to implead the Union of India in the instant petition and serve a copy of the petition along with relevant enclosures to the Additional Solicitor General Y.J Dastoor.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Director, Alipore Zoological Garden & Ors
The Calcutta High Court took cognisance of incidents of alleged trespass at the premises of the Kolkata Zoological Garden popularly known as the Alipore Zoo over control of its employees' trade union. The police authorities and the Zoo authorities were directed to submit detailed reports in this regard by February 2 pursuant to the examination of the relevant CCTV footage. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a plea moved by BJP leader Rakesh Kumar Singh alleging that on January 24 about 600-700 persons had forcefully entered the Zoo premises even though the premises were not open to the public due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. It was contended by the petitioner that on January 24, a group of about 600-700 persons some of them with firearms and weapons had barged into the Alipore Zoo primarily through its main gate after breaking open its padlocks while others had jumped in over the surrounding walls. It was further submitted that till date such trespassers are still residing inside the zoo premises illegally. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court directed, "The Director of Zoo, shall inspect the entire Zoo premises today and tomorrow and submit a report of what he sees including the outsiders. All such outsiders shall be identified, from the regular employees." Furthermore, the Court directed the police authorities to examine the relevant CCTV footage from January 23 till January 28 and submit a detailed report. The zoo management authorities were also ordered to submit a report after examining the CCTV footage in their possession.
Case Title: Mostafizur Molla v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court sought the personal appearance of a school headmaster for not complying with an earlier order of the Court wherein the concerned school had been instructed to file an affidavit enumerating as to why a no-objection certificate (NOC) could not be granted to the petitioner. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay noted that the earlier order of the Court dated January 21, 2022 had been communicated by email to the school authorities on January 24, 2022. Furthermore, it was recorded that despite the Court's directions no affidavit enumerating the reasons for non-issuance of the NOC had been filed by the school authorities on January 28, 2022. "Despite having the said copy of the order of this court dated 21st January, 2022, neither the school filed any report in the form of an affidavit nor the school granted the petitioner no-objection", the Court observed. Accordingly, the Court sought the personal appearance of the school headmaster and further remarked, "This court is surprised by the letter of the school sent to the petitioner via email dated 29.01.2022 demanding order of this court dated 28.01.2022.In such circumstances I direct the headmaster of the school to appear personally on 08.02.2022 at 10.30 a.m. before this court either with the no-objection certificate or with the report if the school thinks that no- objection cannot be issued to the petitioner. The report should be in the form of an affidavit."
Case Title: Rita Mitra v. Narayan Swarup Nigam & Ors
The Calcutta High Court expressed displeasure at the conduct of the State government for not complying with the Court's earlier order directing the State to ensure a ban on plying of unregistered E-rickshaws in the State. The Court vide order dated August 17, 2018 had disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition after directing the State government to ensure that all E-rickshaws playing in the State are registered with the Regional Transport Authorities subject to compliance of such vehicles with Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The State authorities were further instructed to ensure that unregistered E-rickshaws are not allowed to ply on the roads. "We are taking a serious view of the matter. The parent order was passed about three and a half years ago. The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, shall file a report before us on the next date stating the present status of compliance of the order dated August 17, 2018, as modified by the subsequent orders referred to above. It is in public interest that illegal plying of unregistered E-rickshaws must be stopped. We trust and hope that the Transport Department appreciates the immediate need and importance of stopping all unregistered E-rickshaws from plying", the Court directed.
Case Title: Israfil Sk. v. State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court expressed displeasure at the manner in which the investigation is being carried out by police authorities of Kalna Police Station, Purba Bardhaman in a case pertaining to the disappearance of a minor girl in Kalna district of West Bengal. The Court was adjudicating upon a Habeas Corpus Plea moved by the parents of the missing minor girl. A Bench comprising Justices T. S. Sivagnanam and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya took on record a status report filed by Rakesh Singh, Officer-in-Charge, Kalna Police Station, Purba Bardhaman dated February 1. On a perusal of the report, the Bench observed with dismay, "To say the least, the report is absolutely vague. We have expressed our displeasure to the learned Government counsel and gave an option to withdraw the report and file a proper report and ensure that the investigation is done in a proper manner."
Case Title: Ramaprasad Sarkar v. Union of India
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday praying for a direction to the Central government to remove Jagdeep Dhankhar as the Governor of West Bengal, claiming that he was acting as the 'mouthpiece of the Bharatiya Janata Party'. The PIL has been filed by petitioner Rama Prasad Sarkar who is also a lawyer by profession. Opining on the conduct of the Governor, the petitioner averred, "The present Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal Mr. Jagdeep Dhankhar is acting as the mouthpiece of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He is not only interfering in the functioning of the state of affairs but is also maligning the West Bengal government. This is unparalleled in the history of West Bengal's democracy".The petitioner also submitted that the immunity granted to the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution is not absolute and that the actions of the Governor are subject to judicial scrutiny when challenged for arbitrariness, dishonesty and bad faith. "The Governor is also a formal head who is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, Mr. Jagdeeo Dhankar's observations about the functioning of the various ministries under the State government carry deeper political repercussions as they have the potential to affect the federal structure and amount to a misuse of political office", the plea further averred.
Case Title: Sandeep Prasad & Ors v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court directed the concerned District Inspectors of Schools to not pay any further salary to 573 candidates who had allegedly been appointed for the post of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) despite no such recommendation by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBSSC). Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay was adjudicating upon a batch of petitions pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the WBBSE on the purported recommendation by the WBSSC. The Court underscored, "From the above provision of the Act, it is clear that the appointment of the said 573 candidates are wholly invalid and have no effect for want of recommendation by the commission and, therefore, they cannot work in a school as a recommended candidate by the Commission and their appointment letters of the Board are of no effect. All such appointments given to such 573 candidates are invalid and of no effect." Expressing strong displeasure against the conduct of the inquiry committee, the Court remarked, "The appeal court mandated the committee to file the report by two months from the date of the order of the appeal court. The order of the appeal court was passed on 6th December, 2021. Today we are on 9th February, 2022. Although the said mandatory period of two months have elapsed, not only no inquiry report has been submitted before this court but also nobody of the committee, or on behalf of the committee, did care to appear before this court. This non-appearance is taken very very seriously by this court."
Case Title: Pratap Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court directed the State Election Commission to hold a joint meeting with officials of the West Bengal government within 12 hours and decide as to whether deployment of central paramilitary forces will be required for the peaceful conduct of the upcoming elections to the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj observed,"We hereby direct that the Commissioner, State Election Commission will hold the joint meeting with the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary of the State and the Director General and Inspector General of Police within 12 hours and will do the reappraisal of the ground situation in Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation area and ascertain if deployment of paramilitary forces is necessary for ensuring the peaceful conduct of election of Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation and if require, he will submit and requisition to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs or the competent authority for deployment of paramilitary forces and any request in this regard will be duly considered having regard to the ground situation and in the interest of ensuring peace, security and orderly conduct of the forthcoming Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation Election without any delay." Opining that the Commissioner of the State Election Commission will be held personally liable to ensure that no violence takes place, the Court further remarked, "In case, if the Commissioner, State Election Commission forms an opinion that deployment of the paramilitary forces during Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation election is not necessary, then he will be personally liable to ensure that no violence takes place and free, fearless and peaceful elections are held in Bidhannagar."
Case Title: Pratap Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court on Friday dismissed an application seeking modification of its order dated February 10, 2022 whereby the Court had directed the State Election Commission to hold a joint meeting with the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary of the State as well as the Director General and Inspector General of Police within 12 hours and decide as to whether deployment of central paramilitary forces will be required for the peaceful conduct of the upcoming elections to the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj on Friday was apprised by one of the counsels for the petitioners that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayan Banerjee v. The Election Commission of India and Ors had recorded adverse observations against the Chief Secretary of West Bengal. Accordingly, the counsel had objected to the order of the Court directing the involvement of the Chief Secretary of the State in the decision making process for the deployment of central forces for the Bidhannagar Municipal polls. Dismissing such a contention raised, the Court observed, "Having regard to the nature of direction which has been issued by this Court, we are of the opinion that no modification of the order of this Court is required on the basis of the observations made by the earlier Division Bench in the order dated 28.09.2021 in WPA (P) 245 of 2021 in respect of the Chief Secretary of the State."
Case Title: Nivedita Basu v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court directed the Director of IPGME&R, (SSKM Hospital), Kolkata to constitute a medical board as per the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 while adjudicating upon a plea of a woman seeking medical termination of her 34 weeks old foetus. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, "This Court directs the Director of IPGME&R, (SSKM Hospital), Kolkata, respondent no. 4 to constitute a medical board comprising of experts, inter alia, in gynaecology and obstetrics as per the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended in the year 2021) to assess the medical condition of the petitioner and the necessity and advisability of the MTP at this stage."The Court further ordered that the report containing the medical opinion must be submitted before the Court by February 15 and accordingly remarked further, "The mental and physical health of the petitioner as well as the foetus should be considered and opinion should be submitted to this Court as expeditiously as possible but not later than Tuesday 15th February, 2022."
Case Title: Madhurima Sengupta v. Facebook Inc. India and Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the petitioner to immediately share the URL details of an alleged offensive post about Goddess Saraswati with the authorities of Facebook India in order to authorise the removal of such an offensive post. The Court also directed the petitioner to take appropriate steps to implead the alleged offender as a party in the instant proceedings. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions for the removal of an offensive Facebook post about Goddess Saraswati. Directing the Facebook authorities to take steps to remove such an offensive post, the Bench observed, "Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if such a message has been posted in the facebook, then it is required to be deleted as apparently it is offensive. Respondent No.1 is directed to do the needful in this regard." Pursuant to the submissions of the concerned parties, the Bench further directed, "Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to disclose the URL of the post in question to the respondent No.1 without any delay and also take appropriate steps to implead the person who had posted such a message in the Facebook."
Case Title: Sandeep Prasad and Ors v. State of West Bengal
In an unprecedented development, the Calcutta High Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a probe into the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission ((WBSSC). Such an order was passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay on Tuesday despite the fact that a Division Bench of the High Court had quashed Justice Gangopadhyay's earlier order wherein a similar CBI probe had been ordered into the alleged recruitment scam. The Court observed that despite its earlier order, the inquiry committee had not submitted its interim report or the minutes of the minutes of all the meetings conducted by the committee. Opining further that satisfaction of the court is necessary for continuation of the committee, Justice Gangopadhyay dissolved the inquiry committee by directing, "This show of enough disrespect to this court by the Committee will not be tolerated and is not tolerated by this court and I dissolve the Committee keeping in mind that the committee is not acting under the Division Bench and the Division Bench is not in seisin of the committee and it is the order of the Division Bench that this committee is to file report before this single bench. Therefore satisfaction of this court is necessary for continuation of the committee. I am wholly dissatisfied with the committee and it is not required to function further in this matter. The Committee shall have no power to inquire into the matter from today."
Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Sandeep Prasad
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday imposed a stay for 2 weeks on a Single Bench's order which had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a probe into the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBSSC). The impugned order had been passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay earlier on Tuesday despite the fact that a Division Bench of the High Court had quashed Justice Gangopadhyay's earlier order wherein a similar CBI probe had been ordered into the alleged recruitment scam. The Division Bench observed that a prima facie case has been made out for staying the operation of the impugned order and accordingly observed, "There shall be a stay of operation of the impugned order dated 15th February, 2022 as well as the Writ petition, for a period of two weeks from date or until further order/orders of this Court, whichever is earlier." Opining that the Single Bench had 're-imposed the earlier order' which had been set aside, the Division Bench further remarked, "It appears that despite the said order having passed, the single Bench has dissolved the said Committee constituted by the Division Bench and re-imposed the earlier order which was set aside by the Division Bench when the direction was made to the Central Bureau of Investigation to make an enquiry."
Case Title: Pratap Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State Election Commission (SEC) and the State government in a batch of petitions alleging that large scale violence and rigging of votes took place during the recently conducted municipal elections in West Bengal. The petitions also sought for deployment of central forces for the remaining 108 municipalities which is scheduled to take place on February 27. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the State Election Commission and the State government to file their affidavits-in-opposition within 3 days. Furthermore, the Court directed the State Election Commission to preserve all CCTV footage and the diaries of presiding officers and registers containing the thumb impression/signature of voters of all polling booths with immediate effect in furtherance of the Court's earlier directions vide its order dated December 24, 2021. The Bench also extended police protection to an aggrieved petitioner who had allegedly been physically assaulted by members of the ruling party on the day of the polls. The police authorities were also directed to promptly record the concerned complainant's statement under Section 164 CrPC.
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. The State of West Bengal and others
The Calcutta High Court sought the State government's response in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta Sonali Chakravarty Banerjee on the ground that such reappointment had been done in contravention of existing rules.A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj was apprised that the Governor of West Bengal, as the ex-officio chancellor, has the authority of appointing the Vice-Chancellor of the state-run university pursuant to Section 8(1)(b) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979. Furthermore, it was contended that bypassing such a statutory provision, the State or its Secretary could not have issued the notification for re- appointment of the Vice Chancellor for a period of 4 years. Directing the State government to file a response within 4 weeks, the Bench observed, "Learned Advocate General appearing for the State as also respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are granted four weeks time to file their affidavits-in-opposition. Thereafter, affidavit-in-reply may be filed by the petitioner within one week."
Case Title: Bangla Pokkho Charitable Trust @Bangla Pokkho & Anr
A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Calcutta High Court seeking the use of Bengali language in banking services across the State, purportedly as per the mandate of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The petition has been filed by Bangla Pokkho Charitable Trust, a Bengali nationalist organisation. The matter is likely to come up before the Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj next week. The petition contends that the Chief General Manager of RBI vide a letter dated December 28, 2005 had advised all scheduled commercial banks in India to make available all printed material in trilingual form- English, Hindi and the concerned regional language. However, it is submitted that despite the direction, such practice is not followed by banks in the State, thereby making banking services inaccessible to a vast majority of the population.
19. Alleged Murder Of Student Leader Anish Khan: Calcutta HC Initiates Suo Moto Proceedings
Case Title: In the matter of Anis Khan
The Calcutta High Court on Monday took suo moto cognisance of the alleged murder of social activist Anis Khan in Amta in Howrah district. The incident led to widespread protests and demands for investigation by an independent agency. Earlier on Monday, an oral plea had been made before Justice Rajasekhar Mantha praying for the intervention of the Court by initiating a suo motu motion in finding out the persons responsible for the death of Anish Khan. On perusal of the submissions, Justice Mantha agreed to inmate suo moto proceedings. He observed, "Let the papers in the form of a list of dates and a notarized affidavit dated 21st February, 2022 be served on Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the State. Further, any other facts may also be communicated to Mr. Banerjee. Mr. Banerjee may take appropriate instructions from the State and make appropriate submissions on the adjourned date i.e. 24th February, 2022". Terming the incident as 'grave and shocking', the Court further recorded in its order, "The matter was mentioned expressing extreme urgency. A grave and emergent situation is stated to have emerged. In a shocking turn of events, one Anis Khan who is a social activist is stated to have been murdered. The said Anis Khan is stated to have publicly raised voice, inter alia, against donations being demanded by educational institutions and the poor condition of certain hospitals in Uluberia."
Case Title: Salem Khan v. State of West Bengal and Ors
The Calcutta High Court ordered a second post mortem in the murder case of Allah University student Anis Khan. The Court directed that the second post mortem and the investigation by the State constituted Special Investigating Team (SIT) would be monitored by a District Judge. The Court had earlier taken suo moto cognisance of the case after terming the incident as 'grave and shocking'. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha refused to transfer the investigation to an independent outside agency by observing that it is too premature to opine whether the investigation by the SIT would be appropriate or not. Directing the SIT to proceed with the investigation with urgency, the Court further directed, "This Court would like to first evaluate the investigation of the SIT, the adequacy of which can only be determined thereafter. The SIT shall, therefore, proceed with urgency and expedition. It is expected that no stone will be left unturned in course of such investigation which shall be carried out in letter and spirit and by the book." The Court further ordered that District Judge, 24 Parganas (North) Ms. Rai Chattopadhyay shall oversee the SIT investigation in general and also the second post mortem. The District Judge was also directed to examine the mobile phone of the deceased and the Test Identification parade in particular. The Court further ordered that the mobile phone should be sealed in presence of the petitioner or his representative by the concerned Investigating Officer (IO) of the SIT and transmitted to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad.
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the State government to install two CCTV cameras at the main gate of the residence of BJP MLA and Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari. The Court issued the direction while addressing a plea moved by Adhikari alleging that the State government has failed to provide him with adequate security measures and that taking advantage of the loopholes in the security arrangements third parties are continuously infringing upon his privacy. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha directed, "This Court is of the view that the issue can put up at rest by granting liberty to the writ petitioner and the CRPF to place two CCTV cameras at the main gate as per their own security and risk assessment."However, the Court underscored that the State shall not be responsible.
22. Calcutta High Court Seeks State's Response In PIL Alleging Non-Implementation Of RERA In West Bengal
Case Title: Partha Sarathi Dutta v. State of West Bengal and Ors
The Calcutta High Court has sought response from the State government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that members of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and the Appellate Tribunal have not yet been appointed in West Bengal despite the State government having notified the establishment of the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The counsel appearing for the petitioner apprised a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that the State government vide notification dated July 29, 2021 had notified the establishment of the RERA Authority in West Bengal. Pertinently, during the proceedings the counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per his knowledge, the Chief Justice has appointed Justice Harish Tandon to head a high powered committee for selecting the members of the RERA authority and the Appellate Tribunal. The Bench was further apprised that while the State government has notified RERA rules, established the RERA Authority and the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, it has yet to appoint the personnel therein thereby making the RERA authority in the State almost defunct. It was further contended that the Chairman and the members of the RERA authority are yet to be appointed by the State government.
Case Title: Debasree Roy & Anr v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the concerned police authorities to conduct an enquiry to find out whether the alleged owner in whose possession a French Mastiff dog named 'Bruno' is currently residing is actually the real owner. The Court also ordered that the dog should be returned to the concerned NGO from the possession of the alleged owner. A Single Bench had earlier directed the concerned NGO to return the dog to its alleged owner after the dog had gone missing and was subsequently kept in the custody of the concerned NGO. The NGO was however allowed to visit and inspect the dog at least once in a month. While hearing an appeal preferred by the concerned NGO, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was apprised by the appellate that the alleged owner was not the actual owner and further it was submitted that the dog had been subjected to cruelty by the alleged owners. Taking into consideration the grievance raised, the Division Bench observed, "The direction contained in the order of the learned Single Judge will not be given effect to subject to the condition that the appellants will permit the son of the writ petitioner to visit the dog once a week making due provision for his safety." The Court further ordered, "Let the enquiry in this regard be conduced by the concerned police authority having the territorial jurisdiction over the place where the writ petitioner is residing and to submit the report before this Court within two weeks."
Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Sandeep Prasad & Ors
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBSSC) pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the WBSSC. A Division Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta had earlier set up an inquiry committee headed by Justice Ranjit Kumar Bagh, former judge of the Calcutta High Court. The Bench observed with dismay, "The Court cannot be a mute spectator and allow the litigant to get a clean chit even if they took a stand that they have not issued any recommendation. The Commission is answerable for such act and cannot shy away from such responsibilities by taking a stand that no recommendation was issued." Opining further that the records produced by the inquiry committee reveals a 'shocking state of affairs', the Court observed further, "The record reveals the shocking state of affairs and we refrain ourselves to make any observations thereupon in the midst of an investigation/enquiry by the committee constituted by this Court..The moment prima facie evidence has been produced raising a serious concern on the modalities of the recommendation/appointment made to the candidates not only beyond the expiration of the panel but to the candidates who were not included in the panel itself, such stand has been taken in order to shirk the responsibilities." The Court further extended the earlier issued interim order for a period of 4 weeks or until further orders.
Case Title: Soumendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal
An advocate representing the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) mentioned before the Calcutta High Court on Monday that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed alleging large scale violence in the recently concluded Contai Municipality elections. Elections to 108 municipalities in the State took place yesterday i.e. on February 27. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was apprised by the advocate that large scale electoral violence took place and that there had been a 'complete distortion of law and order'. The Court was further informed that the violence that took place was manifest and thus the Court's leave was sought to urgently hear the matter. The counsel appearing for the BJP prayed before the Bench to consider hearing the matter on March 2. He also mentioned before the Court that the hearing of other petitions filed by the BJP that had alleged violence during the recently concluded elections to 4 municipalities and praying for the deployment of central forces is due to take place on March 7. Considering the grievance raised, the Chief Justice orally remarked, "File it, we will consider it".
Case Title: Dakshinbanga Matsyajbi Forum and Anr v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court sought the State government's response in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition pertaining to the grant of compensation to the family members of tiger attacked victims in the Sundarban area. The PIL filed by an organisation called the Dakshinbanga Matsyajbi Forum alleged that there is no proper State government scheme for providing compensation to the family members of such victims and further sought data pertaining to the total number of victims who had fallen prey to such tiger attacks. The counsel appearing for the petitioner apprised a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj many villagers venture into forests in the Sundarban area for their livelihood and subsequently become victims of such tiger attacks. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court directed the State government to file its response and accordingly directed, "Learned Advocate General seeks 4 weeks time to file a report in the form of affidavit, thereafter exception to the report be filed within two weeks."