Tripura High Court
Present vs . on 21 June, 2023
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
REVIEW PET. NO.40 OF 2023
The State of Tripura and ors.
Vs.
Sri Pradip Debbarma and ors.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Present:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Dey, Advocate General.
Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Ms. A. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : None.
21.06.2023
Order
The present review petition has been filed under
Articles 215 & 226 of the Constitution of India by the
petitioner-State, who are the respondents in WP(C) No.331 of
2021 assailing the order passed by this Court in the said writ
petition on 03.05.2023.
2. When the matter is listed before this Court, Mr.
S.S. Dey, learned Advocate General along with Mr. D.
Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the State submitted
that notices were served to the counsel of the writ petitioners
but he refused to receive the same.
3. The Learned Advocate General appearing for the
review petitioner in all fairness submitted that there is nothing
to seek review of the order dated 03.05.2023 passed in WP(C)
No.334 of 2021 but in view of the prevailing circumstances
wherein by wrongly interpreting the said Order dated
03.05.2023 passed by this Court, some anonymous persons
have created confusion amongst the 10,323 teachers and also
in public at large through Social Media and therefore, need
arises to clarify the said order. He further submitted that
treating the Judgment in „REM‟ a large number of persons
claiming teachers are staging Dharna and making an unlawful
assembly in front of the Education Department of the State of
Tripura and are creating Law and Order problem, and making
unlawful demands.
4. Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Advocate General
along with Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. assisted by Ms.
A. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
State.
5. Since, the subject matter of this present review
petition is not amounting to review the said Order affecting
the right of the petitioners of the WP(C) No.334 of 2021 i.e.
the respondents of this present review petition and further
considering the attitude of the counsel for the writ petitioners
wherein he declined to receive the notice as stated by the
learned Advocate General, this Court is proceeding with the
matter.
6. In view of the prevailing circumstances
explained, the clarification of the Order dated 03.05.2023
passed by this Court in WP(C) No.334 of 2021 is given as
under:-
i) The said WP(C) No.334 of 2021 has been filed
only by three petitioners namely, 1. Shri Pradip Debbarma, 2.
Moynal Hossain and 3) Shri Kanai Lal Das.
ii) This Court at Para-30 of the said order dated
03.05.2023 held as under:-
"30. According to this Court, the memorandum dated
31.03.2020 which have been issued by the respondents is not a
speaking order and it is an omnibus communication is set aside
with a liberty to the respondents to pass a reasoned and specific
order in the subject matter relating to the petitioners. If the
petitioners are aggrieved by the said decision, they can avail
remedies under law"
In view of the above, it is clear that the said
order passed is not in „REM‟ but it is in „personam‟ confining
the relief to the petitioners of the said WP(C) No.334 of 2021
only and is not applicable to all 10,323 teachers.
iii) This Court has not granted any relief in favour of
the writ petitioners for providing them any appointment or to
continue with their services as teachers.
7. Merely by setting aside the memorandum dated
31.03.2020 which was a non-speaking and omnibus
communication, this Court has granted liberty to the
Government/respondents to issue a specific and reasoned
order to the petitioners and if aggrieved they would assail the
same in accordance with the law.
8. In fact, no relief has been granted in favor of the
writ petitioners.
9. With the above clarification, the present review
petition is accordingly closed. It is needless to observe that
the Government is at liberty to initiate steps against the
concerned persons with its investigating agencies for causing
through media an unhealthy atmosphere in society.
10. Accordingly, with the above observation and
direction, this present review application stands closed.
11. The Registry shall supply the copy of this order
to the Office of the Advocate General, to the Office of the
Government Advocate, and also to all the respondents in the
said writ petition and as well copy to the writ petitioners
immediately.
JUDGE
suhanjit
