Tapas Dutta vs State Of West Bengal And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 666 Cal/2

OD-2
                                       ORDER SHEET
                          IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                            Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                   ORIGINAL SIDE

                                     WPO/22/2021

                                  TAPAS DUTTA
                                    VERSUS
                        STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA

Date : 24th February, 2022 Appearance:

Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Sandipan Das, Adv.

Mr. Ankur Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Susmita Chatterjee, Adv.

The Court :- The writ petitioner is directed against an order dated 22nd

December, 2020 passed by the Hon'ble The State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, West Bengal in MA No. 30 of 2020 arising out of EA No. 19 of 2020.

It appears that the Bench of the State Commission was acting in

compliance with an order of a Co-ordinate Bench dated 14th December, 2020

passed in WPO No. 375 of 2020 (Tapas Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.).

It is seen that in terms of the order, the Bench of the Commission was only

seeking to dispose of petitioner's application expeditiously being MA No. 30 of

2020.

The grievance of the petitioner as set out in ground nos. 1 to 6 is singularly

and completely directed personally against the President of the State

Commission.

The order is judicially sound. The petitioner sought re-opening of an

execution case which was otherwise disposed of and dealt with.

It appears in no uncertain terms to this Court, that having failed on the

merits, the writ petitioner has sought to attack the President of the State

Commission in person which is extremely in bad taste and deserves

condemnation and reprimand.

It is explained across the bar that the reason as to why the Commission

was requesting the erstwhile Advocate of the judgment debtor to represent him,

was to comply with orders of the Co-ordinate Bench. It is possible that an

Advocate may not have further instructions from his client but as an officer of

the Court can definitely be requested to assist it.

The writ petitioner in equally bad taste and gross impropriety has also

addressed the Commission by way of a communication dated 17th December,

2020. These are gross attempts at intimidating judicial authority. This is

depricable and is deprecated.

The conduct of the writ petitioner, to say the least, is reprehensible. Under

normal circumstances this Court would have been required to refer the matter to

the Bar Council. This Court short of doing so in the interest of justice and with a

view to put an end to the unfortunate fracas generated by the writ petitioner.

The writ petition is thus disposed of with token costs assessed at

Rs.5,100/- payable by the writ petitioner to the officer of the Registrar, State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Registrar shall receive such

costs and deposit the same in the revenue account of the Commission.

(RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.)

mg/S. Chandra