Debashis Mitra vs Union Of India And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4119 Cal

S/L. 7.
July 11, 2022.
 MNS.
                                    WPA No. 14148 of 2022

                                        Debashis Mitra
                                               Vs.
                                    Union of India and others

                           Mr. Ranjan Kali
                                             ... for the petitioner.

                         Learned counsel for the petitioner contends

                 that, despite the petitioner having replied to each

                 and every show cause notice issued by the

                 respondent authorities under Clause - 3.6(b) of the

contract between the parties dated February 15,

2020, the respondent authorities, without

considering the same at all, terminated the contract

without giving any opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

It is submitted that such action consists of

patent violation of the principle of audi alteram

partem, which is an essential consideration in

dispensation of natural justice.

Learned counsel places specific reliance on

the replies given by the petitioner, in particular,

those annexed at pages 115 and 118 of the writ

petition, as well as the intimation of the petitioner

expressing the petitioner's desire to withdraw from

the contract in view of the alleged action taken by

the respondents, in support the proposition that the

respondent authorities acted palpably without

jurisdiction and de hors the law and natural justice in

terminating the petitioner's contract.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also places

reliance on a co-ordinate Bench judgement dated

September 2, 2021 passed in WPA No. 12367 of

2021 in support of the proposition advanced by him.

It is submitted by learned counsel that a

previous order of a learned Single Judge, in a

matter between the same parties, is distinguishable

on the ground that, in the said case, the petitioner

had taken the ground that no notice was served on

the petitioner and, as such, there was no occasion

for the petitioner to give any reply, whereas in the

present case, the petitioner gave replies to all the

show cause notices, which were never considered

by the respondent authorities.

Although the BSNL was represented on the

last occasion, but none appears today when the

matter is called on for hearing.

Hence, the arguments are concluded.

The matter is reserved for judgment.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)