Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Partha Chatterjee vs Laxmi Tunga & Ors on 20 May, 2022
20.05.2022
Item No.4
Crt. No.11. MAT 784 of 2022
KB/FB/gsd with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2022
(Assigned)
Dr. Partha Chatterjee
-Versus-
Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
Mr. A. K. Mitra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Suman Sengupta
Mr. Subhankar Nag
... For the Appellant
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Firdous Samim
Ms. Gopa Biswas
Ms. Mousumi Hazra
... For the respondents
Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, Ld. Advocate General
Mr. Anirban Roy, Ld. G.P.
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya
Mr. D. N. Mukherjee
... for the State
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya
... for the WBBSE
Party/parties is/are represented in the order of
their name/names as printed above in the cause title.
This appeal is directed against the Order dated
18th May, 2022 in WPA 18585 of 2021 in the matter of
Laxmi Tunga & Ors. -Vs- The State of West Bengal &
Ors.
Several points have been argued by Learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the parties.
Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, Learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant, submits that the Order
impugned is against the principles of natural justice as
well as the procedures required to be followed in an
adversarial litigation. It is submitted that the Hon'ble
Single Bench has converted the adjudication into a
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) without presently holding
the determination to do so.
Learned Senior Counsel reiterates the position that
Orders are being passed against the appellant, who is a
Senior State Minister, without even making the
appellant a party to the writ petition. Relying on several
judicial authorities, it is submitted that in the order
impugned in this appeal, the Hon'ble Single Bench has
expressed the expectation that the appellant should
step down from his position of State responsibilities and
also, steps be taken in this regard by the appropriate
higher authorities.
Mr. Mitra submits that the afore-stated expectation
expressed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in a formal Order
requires to be forthwith expunged, the same being
beyond pleadings in the writ petition as well as the same
being in the nature of pre-judging any investigation
without granting the appellant an opportunity of being
heard.
Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Learned
Senior Counsel, relies on several judicial authorities to
highlight the point that there is a distinction between
monitoring and supervising an investigation.
Mr. Bandyopadhyay submits that the Hon'ble
Single Bench may arguably, monitor an investigation by
directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to do
so. However, the tenor and content of the Orders of the
Hon'ble Single Bench, including the Order impugned
dated 18th May, 2022 in this appeal, show that the
Hon'ble Single Bench has gone beyond the judicial
restraint of monitoring an investigation and stepped into
a role of an investigating agency by issuing directions in
aid of supervising the course of investigation.
Mr. Bandyopadhyay further submits that the
expectation expressed by the Hon'ble Single Bench as
referred to above in this Order, requires to be expunged
since the same has the tendency to stigmatise the
appellant in society without the investigation having
reached a conclusion and, even without the opportunity
of being heard granted to the appellant although such is
provided for in the Order of the Hon'ble Division Bench
dated 18th May, 2022 in a series of appeals decided on
similar points.
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Private Respondents in this
appeal/the writ petitioners, submits that the opinion
expressed by the Hon'ble Single Bench connected to its
expectation may be considered to be in the nature of an
obiter. However, Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that there
is no requirement to expunge the remarks and takes the
stand that on the point of expunction the private
respondents intend to submit before this Court on
merits.
Having heard the parties and considering the
materials placed, this Court arrives at the following
findings.
First, the issues connected to the nature of the
investigation have been already discussed threadbare by
this Court in a series of appeals being MAT 490 of 2022
(Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha -Vs- Laxmi Tunga & Ors.) with
other similar appeals by a common Judgment and
Order of this Court dated 18th May, 2022.
This Court therefore finds no reason to sit either in
appeal or judicial review of its own Order dated 18th
May, 2022 presented in the guise of a separate appeal.
This appeal accordingly cannot be argued by the
appellant on points already decided by the common and
detailed Judgement and Order of this Court dated 18th
May, 2022.
It also transpires from the record that the writ
petition out of which this appeal arises, is also a writ
petition included in the common Judgement and Order
dated 18th May, 2022 (supra) connected to MAT 481 of
2022.
Accordingly, the appellant shall be entitled to raise
all the above discussed points before the Hon'ble Single
Bench.
However, with regard to the expression of the
expectation by the Hon'ble Single Bench in its Order
dated 18th May, 2022, this Court holds the same to be
an obiter and hence not binding at this stage.
MAT 784 of 2022 with IA CAN No. 1 of 2022
stand accordingly disposed of.
All parties to act in terms of a copy of the order
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this Order, if
applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
(Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.) (Subrata Talukdar, J.)
