Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ashlesh Biradar vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 July, 2022
July 18, 2022
Court No.1
PA(RB)
WPA (P) 104 of 2022
Ashlesh Biradar
vs.
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Senior Advocate
Mr. Manoj Tiwari,
Mr. Shwetank Ginodia,
Ms. Harshita Ginodia,
Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Advocates
... for the petitioner
Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, ld. AG
Mr. Samrat Sen, ld. AAAG
Mr. Anirban Ray, ld. GP
Mr. T.M. Siddiqui,
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Advocates
... for the State
This public interest petition was filed
challenging the order dated 3rd of March, 2022 issued
by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home & Hill Affairs
Department, Government of West Bengal under Section
144 of Cr.P.C. temporarily suspending the internet
services within the specified complex/police stations of
district Malda, Murshidabad, Uttar Dinajpur, Cooch
Behar, Jalpaiguri, Birbhum and Darjeeling. This Court,
after hearing learned counsels for both the parties and
after taking note of the requirement of Section 144 of
Cr.P.C. and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of
India and Others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 637 and
People's Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union
of India and Another reported in (1997) 1 SCC 301
and requirement of the provisions of the Act, had prima
WPA (P) 104 of 2022
facie reached to the conclusion that the impugned
order was passed without authority of law and without
taking note of the requirement of Section 5(2) of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Temporary Suspension
of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety)
Rules, 2017 (for short, 'the Rules of 2017') and also
found that test of proportionality was not satisfied.
Therefore, by order dated 10th of March, 2022, this
Court had stayed the operation of the impugned order
dated 3rd of March, 2022 until further orders.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 3rd of
March, 2022 reveals that the said order was to remain
valid and to be implemented for a specified period from
7th of March, 2022 to 9th of March, 2022, 11th of March,
2022, 12th of March, 2022 and 14th of March, 2022 to
16th of March, 2022, hence, with the passage of time,
the impugned order has lost its force.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred
to Rule 2(2) and Rule 2(6) of the Rules of 2017 which
reads as under:
"2(2). Any order issued by the competent
authority under sub-rule (1) shall contain
reasons for such direction and a copy of such
order shall be forwarded to the concerned
Review Committee latest by next working day.
* * *
2(6). The Review Committee shall meet
within five working days of issue of directions for
suspension of services due to public emergency
or public safety and record its findings whether
the directions issued under sub-rule (1) are in
WPA (P) 104 of 2022
accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2)
of section 5 of the said Act."
Referring to the above Rules, he has submitted
that the State Government in the subsequent order has
not complied with these Rules, therefore, a direction be
issued to duly comply with the said Rules. He has also
submitted that the order suspending telecom services
is required to be published and in this regard, he has
referred to the paragraph 160.1 of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anuradha
Bhasin (supra).
The Rule of 2017 are required to be complied
with and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already laid
down the law which is binding under Article 141 of the
Constitution, hence, we express hope that while issuing
any such order in future, the State authorities will duly
comply with the same.
Since the issue involved in the present case has
now become academic, therefore, we accordingly
dispose of the petition.
[Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.]
[Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.]
