Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sushil Shikary & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 September, 2024
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Form No. J.(2)
Item Nos.31 & 32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 04.09.2024
DELIVERED ON: 04.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
M.A.T. 1080 of 2024
With
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024
With
I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2024
Sushil Shikary & Anr.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
M.A.T. 1083 of 2024
With
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024
With
I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2024
Bappa Dutta
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Appearance:-
Mr. Rameshwar Sinha
Mr. Sayan Adhya
Mr. N.H. Choudhury .........for the appellants
Mr. Somnath Ganguly, Ld. AGP
Mr. Raja Ram Banerjee ......for the State in M.A.T. 1080 of 2024
Mr. Amal Kr. Sen
Mr. Jaladhi Das .........for the State in M.A.T. 1083 of 2024
2
Mr. Alok Kr. Ghosh
Mr. Swapan Kr. Debnath
Mr. Gopan Chandra Das ........for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation
Mr. M.N. Ray ...........for the respondent
Mr. Biswarup Nandy
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.)
In Re: I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 in M.A.T. 1080 of 2024
&
In Re: I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 in M.A.T. 1083 of 2024
1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.
2. There is delay of 19 days in filing the appeals. We have perused the
affidavits filed in support of the petitions and we find that sufficient cause
has been shown for not being able to prefer the appeals within the period of
limitation.
3. I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 in M.A.T. 1080 of 2024 and I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024
in M.A.T. 1083 of 2024 are allowed and the delay in filing the appeals is
condoned.
In Re: M.A.T. 1080 of 2024
&
In Re: M.A.T. 1083 of 2024
4. These intra-Court appeals have been filed challenging the common order
dated April 4, 2024 passed in several writ petitions including the writ
petitions filed by the appellants. The prayer sought for in the writ petitions
was to issue Exemption Category Cards on the ground that the
appellants/writ petitioners served as Enumerators.
5. Identical claims were made earlier by others based upon a certificate issued
by one Ganesh Guha Thakurtha, who was stated to be the Chairman of
Borough-XII of Kolkata Municipal Corporation during the period 1991.
6. Though the said order passed in those writ petitions was upheld by the
Division Bench, on appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order was set
aside and it was held that the Chairman of the said Borough had no
jurisdiction to issue any certificate. Therefore, it will be too late in the day
for the appellants to rely upon the same certificate and claim for Exemption
Category Cards.
7. Thus, the learned Writ Court was fully justified in dismissing the writ
petitions. We also find that in paragraph 31 of the impugned order, the
learned Writ Court had observed that nothing in the order shall preclude
the petitioners from making fresh applications upon production of valid
documents/certificates, which might entitle the writ petitioners to such
Exemption Category Cards, if the writ petitioners so wish.
8. Thus, if at all the appellants/writ petitioners have any other certificate or
any other document other than the certificate issued by the said Chairman
of the Borough, it will be well open to the appellants to take advantage of
the observations made in paragraph 31 of the impugned order.
9. Thus, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Bench. Hence, the appeals and the connected applications are
dismissed.
10. No costs.
11. 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
I agree.
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
Pallab/KS AR(Ct.)
