Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
State Of West Bengal vs Soumen Nandy & Others on 19 May, 2023
19.05.2023
Item No.13.
Court No.6.
AB
M.A.T. 909 of 2023
With
I A CAN 1 of 2023
State of West Bengal
Vs
Soumen Nandy & Others
Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, ld. AG,
Mr. Samrat Sen, ld. AAAG,
Mr. Anirban Roy, ld. GP,
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag ....for the Appellant.
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv,
Mr. Firdous Samim,
Ms. Gopa Biswas,
Ms. Mousumi Hazra,
Ms. Payel Shome .....for the Respondent/
Writ Petitioner.
Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, ld. DSGI,
Mr. Samrat Goswami ......for the E. D.
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya, ld. DSGI,
Mr. Arijit Majumdar ......for the C.B.I.
Mr. Ratul Biswas,
Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury......for the WBBPE.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and
order dated May 12, 2023, passed in RVW 83 of 2023
read with the connected application.
An order dated April 21, 2023, was passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court in CAN 2 of 2023
filed in WPA 9979 of 2022, which was a writ petition
registered under Group-II.
An application for review of the said order was
preferred by the State being RVW 83 of 2023. The
review application was assigned to another learned
Judge of this Court by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice
pursuant to direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The learned Judge to whom the review petition was
specially assigned, dismissed the same by the
judgment and order dated May 12, 2023, which is one
of the subject matters of challenge in this appeal.
Since the entire proceedings relate to Group-II
and we do not have determination to hear appeals
arising out of Group-II matters (we only have
determination regarding Group-I and Group-V
matters), we are of the view that we do not have the
authority to hear this appeal.
Learned Advocate General drew our attention to
the following observations in the judgment and order
dated May 12, 2023.
"In such a situation the Hon'ble Judge thought it apt
to pass necessary order on the application filed by the
Enforcement Directorate bringing on record the subsequent
events discovered in the process of investigation.
Learned Advocate General has argued that passing
any order in relating to municipality matter by a judge
dealing with education matters was a procedural error.
Assuming, but not admitting, that there was any
procedural error in passing any order relating to
municipalities, the same may be taken care of by this
Bench, as this Bench has been allocated the determination
to entertain, hear and decide matters relating to
municipalities. In view of the assignment of the review
petition by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this Bench is
presently seized with the jurisdiction to entertain the issue
of the writ petition as well as any matter relating to
municipalities. By this way, the procedural error, if any,
stands cured."
Learned Advocate General says that in view of
the aforesaid observation of the learned Single Judge,
this Bench does have the determination to hear the
appeal since the learned Single Judge exercised
jurisdiction relating to the Municipal matters.
We are unable to agree with such submission.
The review petition arose out of an order passed in a
writ petition registered under Group-II. Assignment of
the review petition by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to
the learned Judge, who disposed of the review petition,
or any observation in the order of the learned Judge
dismissing the review petition, cannot, in our opinion,
convert a writ petition under Group-II to a writ petition
under Group-V.
Accordingly, we release this matter from our list.
Let this matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice for appropriate directions.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.)
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)
