Biswajit Saha & Others vs Union Of India & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 191 Cal

27.01.2022
Item No.38.
Court No.6.
   AB

                               (Via Video Conference)

                                  M.A.T. 31 of 2022
                                        With
                                  I A CAN 1 of 2022

                               Biswajit Saha & Others
                                             Vs
                              Union of India & Others

                     Mr.   Kishore Datta, Sr. Adv,
                     Mr.   Amit Pan,
                     Mr.   Aryak Dutt,
                     Mr.   Dipankar Das        ...for the Appellants.

                     Mr. Ansar Mondal,
                     Ms. Tapati Samanta           ....for the State.

                     Mr. Sankar Sarkar            ....for the U.O.I.

                     Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv,
                     Mr. Piush Chaturvedi,
                     Mr. Uttam Kumar Mondal....for the Respdt. 3.


                    By consent of the parties, the appeal and the

              application are taken up together for hearing.

                    This is an appeal against a judgment and order

              dated January 5, 2022, whereby WPA 5538 of 2021

              was disposed of.

                    The writ petition was listed before the learned

              Single Judge under the heading "Group-I" at the

              instance of the writ petitioners. The learned Judge had

              determination      to   hear    "Group-I"     matters.   The

              grievance of the writ petitioners is in respect of actions
                                  2




proposed to be taken by the Power Grid Corporation of

India Limited, which, according to the writ petitioners,

would render their land useless. The proposed action

of the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited is

evidently under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the

Electricity Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

       In our considered view, this matter should have

been classified as a "Group-IX" matter, and not

"Group-I" matter. It is not in dispute that the learned

Judge, who heard and disposed of the writ petition,

did    not   have    determination     to        hear   "Group-IX"

matters. It is fairly well settled that an order passed by

a learned Judge in a matter, which the learned Judge

did not have determination to hear, would be non est

in the eye of law. This flows from the fact that the

Chief Justice of High Court is the Master of the roster

and has the exclusive power and prerogative to assign

matters      to   particular    Judges.     It    is    from   such

assignment that a particular Judge derives jurisdiction

to hear a particular matter.

       In view of the fact, we are of the opinion that the

writ   petition     comes      under   "Group-IX".        We    are

constrained to set aside the order under appeal only

on the ground of lack of determination of the learned

Judge to hear and dispose of the matter.

       The writ petitioners may take appropriate steps

to have the matter listed before the appropriate Bench.
                             3




      Since we have not called for affidavits, the

allegations in the stay petition are deemed not to be

admitted by the respondents.

The appeal being MAT 31 of 2022 along with IA

CAN 1 of 2022 are, accordingly, disposed of.

Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying

with all necessary legal formalities.

(Kausik Chanda, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)