Sundarananda Barman And Another vs The State Of West Bengal And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2794 Cal

 AD. 6&7
April 16, 2021
 MNS/TN
                                     RVW 2 of 2021
                                  IA No: CAN 1 of 2021
                                          In
                                   WPA 10069 of 2020

                                (Via video conference)

                        Sundarananda Barman and another
                                        Vs.
                        The State of West Bengal and others


                 Mr. Swarup Banerjee,
                 Mr. Monoj Kumar Bhattacharyya

                               ... for the review applicants-petitioners.

                 Mr. Samrat Sen,
                 Mr. Amitava Mitra

                                      ...for the respondent no. 1.

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be

taken on record.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioners that service has been completed

effectively on all the respondents. As per leave

sought by learned counsel, the petitioners are

granted liberty to file their affidavit-of-service to

that effect during the course of the day.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondent no.1 controverts the allegations in the

writ petition primarily on the legal question as to

whether the documents now produced with the

review application would have made any difference

in the event they were disclosed at the juncture

when the writ petition was initially heard. Learned

senior counsel specifically contends that Clause 70

of the contract between the parties, which has also

been annexed to the stay application filed in

connection with the review, operates in respect of

entitlement of a party to terminate and to claim

damages in the event of large scale epidemics,

quarantines or other incidents amounting to force

majeure. It is submitted that since the contract of

the writ petitioners expired by efflux of time, there

was no voluntary termination on the part of the

employer to come within the purview of such

Clause. As such, learned senior counsel argues

that, although he cannot take up the stand of the

employer-respondent, but such question of law

stares at the face as to whether the documents now

produced could entail any change in the decision

under review.

Learned senior counsel further argues that

no public element is involved in respect of

extension of a private contract and, as such, a writ

court cannot go into such question at all.

Learned counsel appearing for the review

applicants places stress on the pandemic situation

and the difficulties arising out of the same for all

contractors as well as employers. Hence, learned

counsel argues that a liberal interpretation of

Clause 70 of the contract ought to be given.

Learned counsel for the review applicants

further contends that since the work-in-question

pertains to public utilities, an ingredient of public

law is involved, thus conferring power on the writ

court to decide on the matter.

Upon hearing learned counsel appearing on

virtual mode, it appears that the review application

primarily hinges on such question of law as argued

by the first respondent. As such, the hearing is

deemed to be concluded even in the absence of the

employer-respondent, in view of the submission

made by counsel for the petitioners as regards

service having been effectively completed against all

the respondents.

Judgment is reserved in the matter.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)