Tapan Kumar Jana vs The State Of West Bengal & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3140 Cal

02.05.2023
Item No.2.
Court No.6.
   AB
                                 M.A.T. 723 of 2023
                                        With
                                 I A CAN 1 of 2023

                                Tapan Kumar Jana
                                        Vs
                         The State of West Bengal & Others

                    Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha ...for the Appellant.

                    Mr. Malay Singh,
                    Mr. Bibekananda Tripathy ....for the State.


                    By consent of the parties, the appeal and the

              application are taken up for hearing together.

                    An order passed on the appellant's writ petition,

              interim in nature, in the sense that the writ petition is

              still pending before the learned Single Judge, is under

              challenge in this appeal.

                    The appellant has approached the learned Single

              Judge complaining that the Headmaster of Moyna

              Adarsa Sikshyatan under Bakcha Gram Panchayet in

              Purba Medinipur has raised a boundary wall adjacent

              to   the   writ   petitioner's   premises,    without    any

              permission from the Gram Panchayet.

                    By the order impugned, the learned Judge has

              directed learned Advocate for the State respondents to

obtain necessary instructions from the Block

Development Officer, Moyna Block, with regard to the

writ petitioner's complaint. Being aggrieved, the writ

petitioner is before us.

We have our serious doubts as to whether this

appeal is maintainable at all. By the order impugned,

the learned Judge has decided nothing. The writ

petition is yet to be decided. The order, in our opinion,

is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of

the Letters Patent, nor is appealable under 0.43 r.(1) of

the Code of Civil Procedure.

Keeping aside the question of maintainability,

even otherwise, we see no legitimate reason for the

appellant to feel aggrieved by the impugned order.

The appellant says that the Block Development

Officer is not the Appropriate Authority to give

instructions. Whoever the Appropriate Authority may

be, the appellant may make appropriate submission in

that regard before the learned Single Judge. We find

absolutely no reason to interfere with the order under

appeal.

Since we have not called for affidavits, the

allegations in the application are deemed not to be

admitted by the respondents.

MAT No.723 of 2023 is dismissed along with IA

CAN 1 of 2023.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied expeditiously after compliance

with all the necessary formalities.

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)