Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1198 Cal/2
Judgement Date : 17 May, 2023
OD-11
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/245/2022
SUPRATIK GHOSH
VS.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF KOLKATA & ORS.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 17th May, 2023
Appearance :
Mr. Tapas Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Mritynjoy Halder, Adv.
...for the appellant
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Rauth, Adv.
...for the High Court Administration
Mr. Ram Mohan Pal, Adv.
...for the respondent nos.7&8
Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Sr. Standing Counsel ...for the State
The Court : We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
This intra-court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the
judgment and order dated 11th August, 2021 passed in WPO No. 831 of 2021.
The said writ petition was filed by the appellant praying compensation for loss of
document which was supposed to be in the custody of the Court. Earlier, the
appellant had approached this Court and filed a writ petition and a direction
was issued in the said writ petition to furnish a certified copy of the said
document so as to enable the appellant to pursue his remedies before the civil
court. It appears that in WP No.31667(W) of 2013, dated 26th June, 2018, the
prayer sought for in the writ petition was to grant compensation by the State on
the ground of loss of document seized by the Police authorities with regard to a
complaint lodged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1991.
The Court by the said order directed certified copy of the document to be
furnished to the appellant and did not assess the claim for compensation. Thus,
the writ petition stood disposed of only with the direction to furnish certified
copy of the said document. The appellant allowed the said order passed in the
writ petition dated 26th June, 2019 to attain finality and kept pursuing his
remedy before the civil court which ultimately was dismissed and confirmed by
this Court in revision. Thereafter, an attempt has been made by the appellant
seeking for compensation inasmuch as the said compensation was not assessed
when the earlier writ petition was disposed of. The appellant has chosen a
wrong forum for claiming compensation. As rightly held by the Learned Single
Bench, the issue raised by the appellant involves disputed questions of fact
which obviously cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition.
Thus, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Learned
Single Bench and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
However, it will be well open to the appellant to pursue the other remedies
available under law, if so advised, before the appropriate forum.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
SN
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!