Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Sanjoy Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 29 July, 2019
1
7 29.7.19
Sc
W.P.S.T. 77 OF 2019
----------
Sri Sanjoy Mondal
-vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Goutam Dey Ms. Rituparna Sengupta Mr. Anupam Das.
....For the Petitioner.
Mr. Joytosh Majumder Mr. Mani Sankar Chattopadhyay Mr. Susanta Paul Ms. Kakali Samajpati Mr. Avishek Prasad.
...For the State.
An order dated 10th August, 2016 dismissing O.A. 796 of 2016 is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the original applicant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereafter the tribunal).
An objection to the maintainability of this writ petition is raised by Mr. Majumder, learned Government Pleader. According to him, the writ petition is grossly delayed without there being sufficient justification as to why the petitioner could not approach the writ Court earlier.
Mr. Dey, learned advocate for the petitioner, while meeting the preliminary objection, has drawn our attention to paragraphs 12 and 15. It is his contention that the writ petition could not be filed earlier than 21st January, 2019 because the petitioner was busy in the process of obtaining information by exercising his right under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is only after receiving 2 information from the relevant State Public Information Officer that the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court, albeit, belatedly.
If indeed this be the defence of the petitioner to the preliminary objection, we are of the view that the preliminary objection ought to succeed.
The petitioner seeks to have the order of the tribunal dated 10th August, 2016 reversed based on documents which did not form part of the records of the tribunal. The tribunal not having had the opportunity to look into such documents, it would be inappropriate for us to hold, in the event we accept Mr. Dey's contention on merits, that the tribunal was in error in dismissing the original application.
That apart, we have our doubts as to whether the explanation offered by the petitioner in paragraphs 12 and 15 is at all correct or not. Despite dismissal of O.A. 796 of 2016 by the order dated 10th August, 2016, the petitioner waited for at least 362 days to apply for the certified copy thereof. The certified copy having been applied for on 7th August, 2017, it was made ready for delivery on the following day, i.e., 8th August, 2017. The delay in applying for the certified copy has not been explained at all.
For such reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The same stands dismissed, without costs.
However, this order of dismissal shall not preclude the petitioner to apply for a review of the order dated 10th August, 2016 on the basis of the documents allegedly procured by him subsequently, if so advised but strictly in accordance with law.
3
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) (Dipankar Datta, J.)