Rabin Naskar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5866 Cal

    45
29.11.2021
 Ct. No. 4
    rrc
                                WPLRT 60 of 2021
                           (Through Video Conference)


                                  Rabin Naskar
                                       VS.
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors.



                   Mr. Mahim Sasmal
                   Md. Hasanuz Zaman
                                        .....For the petitioner


                   Mr. T. M. Siddiqui
                   Mr. N. Chatterjee
                                        .....For the State


                   Md. Abdul Alim
                   Md. M. N. Chowdhury
                                     ......For the respondent no. 6

The instant writ petition arises from a

judgment/order dated 1st October, 2021 passed by the

West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal

disposing of miscellaneous applications being M.A. 616 of

2020, M. A. 618 of 2020 and M.A. 130 of 2021 in O.A.

2679 of 2019.

The petitioner raised a grievance before the Tribunal

in the aforesaid three applications that while disposing of

the tribunal application on 3rd March, 2020, no

opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner nor any

copy of the applications were ever served and, therefore,

the Tribunal acted in violation of the principles of natural

justice.

By the impugned order, the Tribunal disposed of the

said applications holding that the grounds enumerated

therein sans merit.

In course of hearing we find that the tribunal

application was filed alleging inaction on the part of the

Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Canning - I, South

24-Parganas in disposing of the representation appearing

at page - 34 (Annexure-F) to the tribunal application. The

matter appeared before the Tribunal, who was of the view

that once a party has approached the authority, it is the

ardent duty of the authority to take a decision thereupon

instead of keeping the same pending or in abeyance.

It is no doubt true that the party to the proceeding is

entitled of a service of the pleading and an opportunity of

hearing before any adverse order is passed against him.

Any infraction runs counter to the ethos of the

Constitution and the rights granted therein which cannot

be supported at any costs under fiat of judicial review.

Mere violation of the principles of natural justice does not

ipso facto render the decision unconstitutional and/or

unsustainable unless the Court finds the prejudice to

have been caused.

The tribunal application was disposed of directing the

Block Land & Land Reforms Officer to treat the tribunal

application as representation and decide the same after

giving opportunity of hearing to all the interested

persons. The petitioner was a party to the tribunal

application and can be assumed to be an interested

person as he had counter interest to the application

therein.

Obviously, the authority cannot decide the matter

without affording an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner and, therefore, mere apprehension that the

authority would not adhere to such mandate is

unfounded and unsustainable. There is no prejudice

caused to the petitioner while passing an innocuous

order by the Tribunal even if we accept the contention of

the petitioner that there was no service of such

application or no opportunity of hearing was given to

him.

Obviously, the authority before embarking a journey

of taking a decision shall supply the copies of the

relevant documents including the tribunal application

which is treated as representation in terms of the order of

the Tribunal to the petitioner being an interested person

and, therefore, merely on an apprehension of violation of

such right is not accepted.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed

of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

We make it clear that all defences which are available

to the petitioner if agitated before the authority, such

authority shall decide the same by providing proper

reasons therefor.

All parties shall act upon the server copy of this order

duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Harish Tandon, J.)

(Rabindranath Samanta, J.)