Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Transcriber: Nandy Susmita Maity ... vs Ganguram Hemram @ Ganguram ... on 21 March, 2022
21.03.2022 CAN 1 of 2022
in
Court : 04 MAT 318 of 2022
Item : PB-09
Matter : MAT
Status : DO
Transcriber: nandy Susmita Maity Jana
Vs.
Ganguram Hemram @ Ganguram Hembram & Ors.
Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Advocate
Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Advocate
Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Advocate
......for the Petitioner
Mr. Prantick Ghosh, Advocate
Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar, Advocate
......for the Respondent No. 1
Mr. D.N. Maity, Advocate
......for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 (WBUHS)
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Senior Advocate
Mr. Rajat Duatta, Advocate
......for the State
The single Bench disposed of the matter
directing the concerned Officer of the State
Government i.e. the Sub-Inspector of School of the
District Primary School Council, Paschim Medinipur
to enquire into the matter as to whether the
allegations made by the writ-petitioner are correct or
not. It was further indicated that while undertaking
such exercise, everybody must be given an
opportunity to place his or her case before the
aforesaid authority.
A preliminary objection was taken before us
when the challenge is made by the private
respondents on the locus of the writ-petitioner to
maintain the writ-petition with such reliefs. It has
been brought to our notice that concerning the
identical cause of action a public interest litigation
was taken out by the writ-petitioner which was
eventually dismissed on the ground of his locus.
Immediately thereafter, the writ-petition was taken
out for the self-same releifs and without entering into
the merits of the case in juxtaposition with the reliefs
claimed therein, the impugned order is passed. The
preliminary objection is based upon the point that in
relation to any service dispute, a person who is not
connected with the School nor with the Institution,
cannot maintain a writ-petition for want of locus
standi.
The attention of this Court was drawn to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465
that unless a person have shown violation of his
statutory or legal rights judicially enforceable, he
cannot maintain the writ-petition. There is no
ambiguity in our mind that the instant writ-petition is
not maintainable in absence of legal, constitutional or
statutory rights recognized in the statutory
documents but equally there is no difficulty in
maintaining the writ-petition if the inaction of the
authorities in discharging its statutory duties are
projected. The impetus to the above can be had from
the observations of the Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan
Noorkhan Pathan (supra) in the following:-
9. "It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be
permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the
Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved
persons.
Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal
injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either
for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there
is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of
statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there
must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on
the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of
course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public
body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided
that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist
on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition
precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit
in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief
prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence
of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction
by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be
the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of
such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same.
(Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12;
Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta
Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.,
AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 1996 SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders
Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784)."
(emphasis supplied)
It is no doubt true that the manner in which the
reliefs are couched in the writ-petition raises a
serious question on the locus of the petitioner.
Equally, this Court cannot overlook the substantial
relief to be granted if discerned from the pleadings to
achieve the ends of justice.
By the impugned order, the Court noticed that
the representation was made before the authority
making serious allegations not only on misutilization
of the fund but also the ill treatment perpetrated upon
the Schedule Caste category students. Such
representation has been kept by the authority in
suspended animation, which appears to the single
Bench to be of serious concern. The authorities
cannot keep the representation in abeyance for all
time to come without addressing the issues raised
therein. The person who has approached the
authority can maintain a writ-petition alleging inaction
on the part of the authority to discharge its solemn
function or duty entrusted upon him. Precisely for the
reason the writ-petition was disposed of directing the
disposal of the said representation upon making an
enquiry on the allegations made therein and to
ascertain the truth which is one of the hallmark of the
justice delivery system.
However, apprehension is shown at the time of
hearing of the instant appeal that there has been a
ruckus in the past when such enquiry was conducted
and there is every possibility that it would be
repeated. The single Bench has directed the enquiry
to be conducted in presence of the persons who are
interested in the cause of the allegations and we do
not find that such direction would invite any ruckus.
However, giving our anxious consideration on the
aforesaid apprehension, we made it clear that the
concern officer shall ensure that the persons who
have a nexus or aggrieved by the cause being the
bedrock of the allegation, shall only be permitted to
heard and no other outsiders nor any extraneous
factor shall be taken into account in this regard.
We thus do not find any infirmity in the order
impugned and, therefore, dispose of the appeal
being MAT 318 of 2022 as well as the connected
application being CAN 1 of 2022 in the light of the
observations made hereinabove.
No order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Rabindranath Samanta, J.)
