Tapan Kora @ Sona Kora vs The Eastern Coalfields Limited & ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 604 Cal

    14
16.02.2022
 Ct. No.23
     pg.
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                               APPELLATE SIDE
                          (Through Video Conference)

                                WPA 1031 of 2022

                             Tapan Kora @ Sona Kora
                                       Vs.
                       The Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors.


                     Mr. Arup Krishna Das
                                ... For the petitioner

                     Mr. Bijoy Kumar
                                 ... For the ECL
                     Mr. Devajyoti Barman
                     Ms. Sanjukta Basu Mallick
                                ... For the respondent no.5

The petitioner says that his elder sister Akuli Kora

was an employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited (in short

"ECL") who died-in-harness. Akuli Kora was married to

Madhu Kora and was issue-less. According to the

petitioner, the respondent no.5 by way of impersonification

has obtained the job from ECL as the son of Akuli Kora.

On the petitioner's complaint, ECL authorities have taken

steps. The petitioner says that though the respondent no.5

was suspended, but he is now allowed to work. The

petitioner further says that the respondent no.5 should not

be allowed to resume his regular duties till the disposal of

the departmental proceedings initiated by ECL on the

basis of the complaint of the petitioner.

In the aforesaid background, I find that the

petitioner is a third party. He may have grievances against

the respondent no.5 for which various avenues are open

but the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under

service determination and seek a mandatory order against

the employer ECL and the respondent no.5, the accused

employee.

The respondent no.5 has also taken the point of

maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the

petitioner and has cited a judgment reported in (1993) 4

SCC 119 (R.K. Jain v. Union of India & Ors.). Relying on

paragraph 74 of the report in R.K. Jain (supra), the said

respondent submits that the petitioner, being a third

party, has no locus standi to canvass any legality or

correctness of the action of ECL.

The writ petition is, therefor, not maintainable and

is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

Dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the

petitioner from availing any other remedy in accordance

with law, if permissible.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of

necessary formalities.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)