Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kasem Ali Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 May, 2023
D/L
Item No 09
08.05.2023
KOLE
MAT 1741 of 2022
With
IA No. CAN 1 of 2023
With
IA No. CAN 2 of 2023
Kasem Ali Mondal
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sandip Kundu,
... for the appellant.
Mr. Naba Kumar Das,
Mr. S. Das,
... for the State.
In Re: CAN 1 of 2023 in MAT 1741 of 2022
This is an application for condonation of delay of 47
days in filing the appeal as noted by the Additional Stamp
Reporter.
Causes shown being sufficient, we condone the delay.
CAN No. 1 of 2023 is, thus, allowed.
In Re: MAT 1741 of 2022 with CAN 2 of 2023
Affidavit of service filed in court today be kept with
the records.
It appears from the service report that the envelope
that was sought to be served on the private respondent has
been returned with the postal endorsement 'insufficient
address'. However, in view of the nature of the order that we
propose to pass, we do not wish to defer the hearing of this
matter.
By the order and judgment dated June 14, 2022, the
appellant's writ petition was disposed of with the
observation that from the report forwarded by the Pradhan
to the Block Development Officer, it appears that there are
certain disputed questions of fact involved in the writ
petition. Such disputes cannot and ought not to be decided
by the Writ Court. The learned Single Judge granted leave
to the appellant/writ petitioner to approach the appropriate
forum, in accordance with law. Being aggrieved, the writ
petitioner is before us by way of this appeal.
The short grievance of the appellant is that the private
respondent has used the exterior wall of his house as a
support to make unauthorized construction. Learned
Advocate for the appellant says that a representation has
been made by the appellant to the Gram Pradhan, Chandipur
Gram Panchayat, P.O. Pirpur, P.S. Uluberia, District
Howrah, ventilating his grievance against the private
respondent. Such representation was received at the
Pradhan's office on July 2, 2019. However, such
representation has still not received the attention of the
Pradhan. The appellant only prays that his representation
be considered and disposed of.
Mr. Das, Learned Advocate, appearing for the State
points out that a report dated August 29, 2019 has been
submitted by the Pradhan of the concerned Block
Development Officer on the basis of the
representation/complaint made by the appellant herein
which was received at the office of the Pradhan on July 2,
2019. Hence, it will not be correct to say that the appellant's
representation was not considered at all.
However, the appellant is granted liberty to make a
fresh comprehensive representation with supporting
documents, if any, as regards his grievance against the
private respondent. If such a representation is made within
four weeks from date, to the Pradhan of the concerned Gram
Panchayat, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with
law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
the representation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the appellant herein, the private respondent herein and any
other concerned party as the Pradhan may deem necessary.
If the Pradhan finds merit in the complaint of the appellant,
he/she shall take appropriate remedial steps in the matter in
accordance with law.
We have not gone into the merits of the appellant's
complaint. If any representation is made by the appellant
within the time period prescribed above, the Pradhan shall
decide the same independently without being influenced by
any observation in the order.
Since we have not called for affidavits, the allegations
made in the stay application are deemed not to be admitted
by the respondents.
The order under appeal stands modified to the
aforesaid extent.
The appeal and the connected application are,
accordingly, disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be
supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
