Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arupratan Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 September, 2024
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1709 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2024 APPELLATE SIDE
TUESDAY
MAT 1635 of 2024
Court : 08
Item : DL-09 with
Matter : MAT
Status : OP CAN 1 of 2024
Bench ID : 266048
Transcriber : NANDY
ARUPRATAN DAS
Vs.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Mr. Biswarup Biwasa, Advocate
......for the Appellant
Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay, Advocate
Ms. Lipika Chatterjee, Advocate
......for the State
1. By the impugned order the direction was passed
upon the respondents to file their affidavit-in-
opposition to disclose their stand on the
averments made in the writ-petition.
2. While passing such direction the Single Bench
has, prima facie, opined that the point which in its
opinion is involved in the said writ-petition,
cannot be decided unless the respondents
discloses their stand. The said order is assailed in
the instant appeal primarily on the ground that
the Court ought not to have entered into the merit
of the claim which is sub-judice before the
authority and should have relegated the parties to
the authorities for a conscious decision. In
support of the same, the unreported judgment of
this Court passed in the case of Sukdeb Patra Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors. in FMA 1329 of 2022
decided on 17.01.2024, is relied upon.
3. According, to the Counsel for the appellant the
proper course, in terms of the Coordinate Bench
decision is to relegate the parties to the
authorities and not to usurp the power of the
authority and decide the core issue. The Counsel
for the appellant is very much vocal in his
submission that the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 631
of 2024 has set aside the order of the Division
Bench of the High Court wherein an interim order
was passed and the respondents were invited to
file affidavit-in-opposition in a matter where the
Tribunal simply directed the parties to exchange
affidavits.
4. There is no ambiguity in our mind to the
proposition of law that the Appellate Court should
not usurp the power of the authority or the Single
Bench and decide the matter in an appeal filed
against an order by which the Tribunal or the
Single Bench directed the parties to exchange
affidavits.
5. The reason can be seen from the fact that if the
Appellate Court decides the matter finally, the
writ-petition shall automatically become
infructuous and shall be mere paper litigation.
Another reason which we could visualize that a
litigant could lose a forum if the Division Bench
decide the main issue pending the writ-petition.
6. We are conscious of the aforesaid proposition and
do not find that it would enure to the benefit of the
appellant. The Single Bench did not apply its
mind and simply make a tentative finding framing
a point which in its opinion involved in the writ-
petition and invited the respondents to respond to
the averments made in the writ-petition. The point
which is urged before the Appellate Court can
very well be urged before the Single Bench and
the Single Bench shall decide the same when the
occasion so arise.
7. Since no decision has been taken by the Single
Bench nor we find that the appellant is an
aggrieved person, the appeal is not
entertainable.
8. The appeal being MAT 1635 of 2024 is
dismissed.
9. The Single Bench has granted leave to mention
the matter for being taken up on priority basis.
We trust and hope that the Single Bench will make
endeavour to dispose of the matter as
expeditiously as possible.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Prasenjit Biswas J)
