Kallol Chatterjee & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4548 Cal

31.07.2023
Item No.1
Ct. No.1
PG/KS
                                W.P.A.(P) 338 of 2023
                             Kallol Chatterjee & Ors.
                                       Vs.
                         The State of West Bengal & Ors.



             Mr. Soumya Majumder
             Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee
             Mr. Debashis Banerjee
             Mr. Supreem Naskar
             Mr. Rakesh jana
                                       .....for the Petitioners

             Mr. Samrat Sen, Ld. AAAG
             Mr. T. M. Siddique
             Mr. Deepnath Roy Chowdhury
                                      .....for the State

              Mr. Indranil Roy
              Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy
                        .....for the National Medical Commission

              Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv.
              Mr. Samir Halder
              Ms. Cardina Roy
              Mr. Aritra Roy Chaudhuri
                             .....for the Respondent nos. 16 & 17

1. This public interest writ petition has been filed by

three persons namely, Mr. Kallol Chatterjee, Mr.

Chiranjit Saha and Mr. Sankar Sarkar. The relief

sought for in the writ petition is against the 16 th

respondent, which is an educational and

research trust, which has set up a medical

college in the land in question.

2. According to the petitioners, the provisions of

West Bengal Land & Land Reforms Act, 1955 and

West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 have been

violated. There are also other allegations, which

have been made in the writ petition stating that

the 16th respondent/medical college is not

entitled to be granted recognition nor admit any

student. A preliminary objection was raised by

the learned senior advocate appearing for the 16 th

respondent/institution and leave was granted to

file an affidavit raising such preliminary

objection.

3. Such an affidavit dated 17 th July, 2023 has been

filed, to which the petitioners have filed a reply

dated 24th July, 2023. The first aspect, which the

Court needs to bear in mind is as to what are the

aspects, which the Court has to take note of

before entertaining a public interest litigation in

order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the

public interest litigation jurisdiction.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State

of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal &

Ors. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 has laid down

the parameters after referring to the decision of

Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. Vs. Prem Chandra

Mishra reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281, wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that public

interest litigation is a weapon, which has to be

used with great care and circumspection and the

judiciary has to be extremely careful to see

behind the beautiful veil of public interest an

ugly private malice, vested interest and/or

publicity-seeking is not lurking. Further, it was

held that it is to be used as an effective weapon

in the armoury of law for delivering social justice

to the citizens. The attractive brand name of

public interest litigation should not be used for

suspicious products of mischief. It should be

aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or

public injury and not publicity oriented or

founded on personal vendetta.

5. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out

that Court has to be satisfied about (a) the

credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie

correctness or nature of information given by

him; (c) the information being not vague and

indefinite. Further, it was pointed out that the

Court has to strike a balance between the two

conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed

to indulge in wild and reckless allegations

besmirching the character of others; and (ii) to

avoidance of public mischief and to avoid

mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for

oblique motives, justifibale executive actions. In

such case further, the Court cannot afford to be

liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that

under the guise of redressing a public grievance,

it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by

the Constitution to the executive and the

legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while

dealing with imposters and busybodies or

meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-

spirited holy men.

6. Further, in paragraph 181 of the judgment;

issued certain directions and one such direction

being that the Court should prima facie verify the

credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a

public interest litigation. This decision in the case

of Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (supra) was

followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.

Kumara Gupta vs. Sri Markendaya and Sri

Omkareshwara Swamy Temple & Ors.

reported in (2022) 5 SCC 710, wherein it was

reiterated that the Court should prima facie verify

the credentials of the petitioner before

entertaining a public interest litigation.

7. From the affidavit filed by the 16 th respondent

and the annexure filed therein, we are able to see

that the 1st writ petitioner had deeply associated

himself in the process of establishing a medical

college by the 16th respondent/trust. This is

evident from the e-mail dated 23rd August, 2021

and other documents, which have been appended

to the affidavit filed by the 16 th respondent. In

fact, in the proforma invoice issued by Ewise

Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., the contact

details shows the name of the 1 st petitioner.

There is another e-mail communication dated

30th November, 2021, which is a mail sent by

Ewise Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. with copy to

the 1st petitioner. However, the 2 nd petitioner is

the son of Mainak Chakraborty's mother's sister.

Again, the 2nd petitioner has a definite interest in

the matter as Mainak Chakraborty was the

erstwhile trustee.

8. The 3rd petitioner Mr. Sankar Sarkar is the

building caretaker of the building, which was

developed by the erstwhile trustee, namely

Mainak Chakraborty, where in one of the flats,

the petitioner no. 1 is residing.

9. In the reply affidavit filed by the writ petitioners,

the allegations are sought to be denied.

Nevertheless, the documents, which have been

appended to the affidavit filed by the 16 th

respondent would clearly show that all the writ

petitioners had direct and substantial interest in

the process of the medical college being

established by the 16th respondent.

10. The learned advocate appearing for the writ

petitioners would refer to Rule 56 of the Rules of

the High Court at Calcutta relating to application

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The rule 56 defines what a public interest

litigation is. Specific reference was made to a

portion of the rule, which commences with the

non obstante clause stating that notwithstanding

anything contained in Rule 56, in any

appropriate case, though the petitioner might

have moved a Court in his private interest and for

redressal of personal grievances, the Court in

furtherance of the public interest involved therein

may treat the subject of litigation in the interest

of justice as a public interest litigation. The rule

gives a power to the Court to do so in any

appropriate case. Therefore, the moot question

would be as to whether this Court considers the

case on hand as one such appropriate case to

examine the grievances, which have been

mentioned in the writ petition.

11. Considering the deep involvement of the three

writ petitioners in the process of establishing the

medical college, we find that the writ petition to

be not a genuine public interest writ petition but,

it is with a private motive. Therefore, we are of

the clear view that the writ petition is not

maintainable at the instance of the writ

petitioners.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not

maintainable.

13. We make it clear that the dismissal of the writ

petition does not mean that we have granted a

seal of approval to all the actions done by the 16 th

respondent. It is up to the 16 th respondent to

satisfy the concerned authorities, in the event, if

any query is raised against them.

14. No costs.

15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be furnished to the parties

expeditiously upon compliance of all legal

formalities.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)