Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rupali Gharami & Others vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 1 July, 2011
Author: Patherya
Bench: Patherya
01-07-2011
02.
md.
WP 10402 (W) of 2011
Rupali Gharami & Others
vs.
State of West Bengal and Others
Mr. L. N. Bhattacharya
being led by
Mr. Subir Sanyal
... for the petitioners
Mr. Pankaj Halder
... for the respondent Nos. 9 & 10
Mr. Sadhan Haldar ... for the State By this writ-application, the petitioners seek to quash the order dated 23rd May, 2011.
The case of the petitioners is that they constituted a SELF-HELP GROUP and were entrusted with the job of cooking Mid-Day Meal in Nischindapur Gharami Para S.S.K. W.P. 2956 (W) of 2011 was filed and order passed therein on 18th March, 2011 by which the respondent No.2 was directed to consider the representation of the private respondents. While considering such representation, although the petitioners or their group were interested party, no opportunity of hearing was given prior to passing of the order dated 23rd May, 2011. Therefore, there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice and for the said reason, the order dated 23rd May, 2011 is liable to be set aside. 2 Counsel for the private respondent Nos. 9 & 10 submits that this application is not maintainable as the petitioner No.1 is authorised by the SELF-HELP GROUP to initiate proceedings. As the SELF-HELP GROUP is not a registered body, therefore it has no locus standi to file this writ-petition as held in AIR 1990 CAL 176, 1995 (1) SCC 85 and 2009 (4) CLJ 710. In fact, orders have been passed by the authorities concerned upon the SATHI SELF-HELP GROUP to make payment to the private respondents and although belated, the payments have been made. Pursuant to order dated 18th March, 2011, the representation was considered and the order dated 23rd May was passed. Therefore, there is no infirmity with the order dated May, 2011.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the issue of locus standi is decided against the private respondents as it is not the SELF-HELP GROUP which has filed this writ-petition. If the SELF-HELP GROUP which is admittedly an unregistered body had filed such application, then the writ-petition would not have been maintainable but all the members of the SELF-HELP GROUP have filed this writ-petition. Therefore, as they have a common cause of action, this writ-petition is maintainable in the eye of law and the decisions cited are not applicable to the facts of this case.
It is an admitted position that the petitioners' SELF-HELP GROUP namely, SATHI was appointed since June, 2009 to undertake the work of cooking of Mid-Day Meals in the concerned SSK. Since then, they have been uninterruptedly discharging such function. The private respondents sought a direction from the authorities upon SATHI to 3 make payments to it as they also were rendering duties of cooking meals. Such direction was given and payments have been made and also received by the private respondents. In W.P. 2956 (W) of 2011 which was filed by the private respondents, an order was passed on 18th March, 2011 by which the respondent No.2 was directed to consider the representation dated 28th January, 2011. Alongwith such representation, the representation dated 3rd January, 2011 made by the private respondents was also enclosed. From a reading of such representation, it appears that all that the private respondents sought was that one Ananda Niketan Self Help Group should be given the responsibility of cooking Mid Day Meal or the new SHG formed by MA KALI Self Help Group should be given such responsibility. Besides the said, the private respondents also sought payment of monthly honorarium. In the said representation it has categorically been mentioned that the private respondents also rendered services of cooking Mid Day Meals in the same SSK where SATHI was engaged. Therefore, it is a fact that in the SSK where SATHI functioned, the private respondents were also functioning and for the functions discharged, were paid honorarium. This fact was before the District Magistrate and it was incumbent upon him to issue notice to SATHI. From a reading of the order dated 23rd May, 2011, it will be evidently clear that only the views of the petitioners, namely, the private respondents herein and the respondent No.4, that is, the B.D.O., was considered. No notice was given to SATHI and without giving any opportunity of hearing to an SHG which was functioning in the SSK and 4 without issuance of any notice of termination, no decision to appoint any other SHG could have been taken.
Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, the order dated 23rd May, 2001 and the same being in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. This, however, will not prevent the respondent No.2 from considering the private respondents' representation as directed by order dated 18th March, 2011 within the time specified therein and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein. This direction is passed as in the order dated 18th March, 2011 it was specifically stated that a hearing be given to all parties as no notice was issued to the writ-petitioners. It is quite possible that the respondent No.2 did not think it necessary to issue notice on them but when the rights of a party is affected that party must be given an opportunity of hearing which has not been done in the instant case. Therefore, this order is passed this day.
Although the point of locus standi has been taken, if such point was to succeed, then W.P. 2956 (W) of 2011 should also fail as the same was filed also by individuals and not by any SHG.
After the passing of this order counsel for the private respondent submits that as Ma Kali SHG has not been made a party, the application be dismissed. The private respondents are members of Ma Kali SHG who will also be heard by the respondent No.2.
With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of. 5 Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the private respondent No.9 be kept on record.
Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Patherya, J.)