Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Sudha Barman vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 July, 2011
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
04.7.2011.
ap W.P. 23487 (W) of 2010.
Smt. Sudha Barman
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Jasobanta Rakshit
... For the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyya
Mr. Raju Bhattacharyya
... For the respondent no.5.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.
The instant writ petition has been filed before this Court on 29th November, 2010, seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:-
"a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus/commanding the respondent authorities to take all effective step/steps to cancel the appointment of Respondent No.5 as 4th Sahayika in Danga Sishu Siksha Kendra under Dinhata - I Panchayat Samiti in the District of Cooch Behar.
b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus/commanding the respondent authorities to take effective step/steps regarding the appointment of the petitioner as 4th Sahayika in Danga Sishu Siksha Kendra in place of the Private respondent whose appointment has been given in most illegal way by violating the rules and regulations of engagement."
At the time of hearing of the matter, learned advocate representing the private respondent no.5 draws this Court's attention to a civil suit which was instituted by the writ petitioner before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dinhata, Cooch Behar. He submits that the said civil suit was filed on 18th December, 2009 and his client is the defendant no.5 in the said suit. He hands up photocopies of the pleadings and order 2 passed by the learned Court below, which may be kept on record. Upon perusing the same it appears that the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the civil suit are, inter alia, as follows:-
"a) That for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is Legally entitled to be engaged as 4th Sahayika under Danga S.S.K.;
b) for a decree of declaration that the resolution dt. 22/12/2008 of Managing committee of Danga S.S.K. in favour defendant no.5 as 4th Sahayika is wrong, illegal, malafide and null and void against the defendants;
c) for permanent injunction against the defendants from engaging the defendant no.5 as 4th Sahayika under Danga S.S.K.
d) for mandatory injunction for engaging the plaintiff as 4th Sahayika under the defendant no.1 Danga S.S.K."
It further appears that in connection with the suit an interlocutory application for injunction was taken out by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was rejected by the learned Civil Judge.
The facts of the case, as elucidated above, is a glaring example of a citizen of India abusing the process of this Court sitting in its high prerogative Constitutional writ jurisdiction. It is obvious that the writ petitioner did not succeed in obtaining any relief from the learned Court below. Upon rejection of her interlocutory application on 13th September, 2010, the writ petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 29th November, 2010, notwithstanding the fact that the Civil Suit was still pending before the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dinhata, Cooch Behar.
The writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and is liable to be summarily dismissed with costs assessed at 300 G.Ms. and is accordingly dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
3(Biswanath Somadder, J.) 4 5