Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. S. G. Enterprise vs The Secretary on 15 November, 2021
AD. 21.
November 15, 2021.
MNS.
(Through Video Conference)
WPA No. 14973 of 2021
M/s. S. G. Enterprise
Vs.
The Secretary, Department of Commerce
and others
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Rananeesh Guha Thakurta
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay,
Mr. Saptangshu Basu,
Mr. Sayan Sinha,
Mr. Mainak Swarnokar
...for the respondent no. 7.
Ms. Senjuti Sengupta
...for the respondent no. 10.
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken
on record.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner contends that the petitioner has been suffering
consistently since the trucks by which the petitioner's
goods are transported across the Petrapole border
between India and Bangladesh are being detained
unlawfully by the respondent no. 7-Municipality and
illegal charges are being levied on the said trucks by the
Municipality.
Learned counsel appearing for the proforma
respondent no. 10, allegedly a transporter's Association
of Bongaon, supports the said contentions of the
petitioner and submits that illegal taxes are being levied
on the trucks by which the petitioner's goods are being
transported.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 7- Bongaon Municipality contends that
the writ petition ought to be dismissed at the outset,
since no nexus between the cause of action espoused in
the writ petition and any infringement of legal right of the
petitioner has been disclosed in the writ petition. It is
further argued that the writ petition is absolutely vague
insofar as the details of the trucks and occasions on
which they were detained illegally are concerned.
That apart, by placing reliance on Section
64(1)(e) in conjunction with Sections 95 and 182 of the
West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7-Municipality
contends that the said respondent has ample power
under the law to levy parking fees in the Municipal
areas.
The said respondent also relies on the judgment
of Bharat Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana,
reported at (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases 534, on the
proposition that a point which is ostensibly a point of law
is required to be substantiated by facts; the party raising
the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and
prove such facts by evidence which must appear from
the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the
counter affidavit.
In the present case, despite the proforma
respondent no. 10 having formally supported the
contentions of the petitioner, I find no direct nexus
between the cause of action espoused in the writ petition
and infringement of any legal right of the petitioner. In
the event taxes are being levied illegally and the
vehicles of the transporters are being detained
unlawfully, it could only clothe the affected parties, that
is, the transporters, with a right to approach with their
grievance before a competent legal forum.
The present writ petition not being a Public
Interest Litigation, as rightly pointed out on behalf of the
respondent no. 7-Municipality, cannot espouse the
cause of the transporters, since the petitioner merely
contends that the petitioner's goods are transported via
trucks, which are being detained and taxed unlawfully.
In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court
finds that the petitioner has no locus standi to prefer the
instant writ petition.
Accordingly, WPA No. 14973 of 2021 is
dismissed in the light of the above observations.
It is made clear that the merits of the rival
contentions of the parties have not been entered into
since the writ petition is being dismissed primarily on the
ground of locus standi.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
