Calcutta High Court
Aditya Sarda vs Regional Passport Officer And Anr on 29 April, 2024
Author: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
OD 14
WPO/353/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
ADITYA SARDA
VS
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER AND ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Date: 29th April, 2024.
Appearance:
Mr. Sudhir Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Bagaria, Adv.
Mr. Devansh Sonthalia, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty, Ld. A.S.G.I.
Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Adv.
Mr. Tirthapati Acharyya, Adv.
...for the Union of India
The Court: Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.
At the outset, learned ASG appearing for the respondent authority
contends that following the principle of Order XXVIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, in particular Rule 1A thereof, if the question of validity of a statutory instrument, not being one contemplated in Rule 1 pertaining to the validity of the statute, is invoked, the Court shall not proceed to determine the question except after giving notice to the Government Pleader if the question concerns the Government or to the authority which issued the statutory instrument if the question concerns an authority other than the Government. 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is not a suit and as such the rigours of the said principle should not strictly apply.
However, since the vires of a Notification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India has been challenged/sought to be read down, the principle as laid down in Order XXVIIA should apply. However, even applying the said principle, it is seen that the learned ASG has already been notified. Moreover, the challenge is not to a statutory instrument of an authority other than the Government but merely a Ministry that is the External Affairs Ministry of the Government of India itself. Accordingly, the notice to the learned ASG shall suffice. Although it is pointed out that a notice has been served on the Ministry of Law and Justice of the Union of India and not the appropriate Ministry, since we have the privilege of the presence of the learned ASG at the time of hearing, the notice to him is deemed to be sufficient notice under Rule 1A of Order XXVIIA of the CPC.
The hearing is commenced. Heard in part. For further hearing tomorrow. The compilation of judgments handed over by learned counsel for the petitioner today be kept on record.
(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.) B.Pal