Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sabori Chatterjee vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 August, 2016
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
17.8.2016.
ap
W. P. 12245 (W) of 2016
Sabori Chatterjee
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Dinabandhu Chowdhury
Mr. Amal Kumar Saha
Mr. Debjit Mukherjee
Mr. Iresh Paul
... For the petitioner.
Mr. Balailal Sahoo
Mr. Surajit Samanta
Mr. Rudranil De
Ms. Pratyusha Das
... For the applicants.
Mr. Suman Sengupta
Mr. Sanatan Panja
... For the State.
Re: CAN 8205 of 2016
This is an application for addition of party taken out by the
applicants at whose instance an order was passed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court presided over by the then Chief Justice in a Public
Interest Litigation, being W. P. 22619 (W) of 2012 (Sandhya Barik & Ors.
vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), consequence of which has given rise
to the instant writ proceeding initiated by Sabori Chatterjee.
As such, this Court is of the view that the applicants are necessary
and proper parties and are required to be added as respondents in the
instant writ proceeding, being W. P. 12245 (W) of 2016.
This application is, therefore, allowed with a direction upon the learned Advocate-on-Record of the petitioner in W. P. 12245 (W) of 2016 to 2 amend the cause-title of the writ petition by adding the names of the applicants as respondents in the instant writ proceeding and to serve a copy of the amended writ petition upon the learned Advocate-on-Record of the applicants in course of this day.
W. P. 12245 (W) of 2016 The subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ proceeding is a demolition notice issued by the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, which appears to have been issued pursuant to the order dated 18th January, 2013, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation, being W. P. 22619 (W) of 2012 (Sandhya Barik & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.).
Learned advocate representing the petitioner specifically submitted that there is a subsisting order of stay passed by the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, on 25th August, 2014, and till such time the stay is vacated, the order of demolition issued by the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, cannot take effect.
The original records were called for, which have been produced before this Court by the State.
It is argued on behalf of the State that the order dated 25th August, 2014, is clear. In the said order, the petitioner was directed to submit her written statement before the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, within 9th September, 2014, and only till then, stay on the process was to 3 continue. It is submitted on behalf of the State that as such, the stay would have automatically got vacated after 9th September, 2014.
The original records produced by the State reveals that so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, she never filed any written statement/written submission before the concerned authority, namely, the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas. A final order was passed in the matter by the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, on 25th September, 2014, which, admittedly, has not been communicated to the petitioner. However, during the course of hearing today, a copy of the said order dated 25th September, 2014, has been served upon the learned Advocate-on-Record of the petitioner.
The question which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the instant case is whether the petitioner is entitled to any protection from this Court in respect of the order of demolition, at this stage. It is evident from the records that a limited order of stay was passed by the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, on 25th August, 2014. However, such order of stay was to continue only until the writ petitioner submitted her written statement/written submission within 9th September, 2014. Admittedly, such written statement/written submission was never filed by the writ petitioner.
Be that as it may, the question of any stay continuing beyond 9th September, 2014, did not arise in view of the clear tenor of the order dated 25th August, 2014, passed by District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas. A final order has also been passed on 25th September, 2014. Since then, there is no embargo and/or fetter on the part of the concerned authority of the State to demolish the illegal structure belonging to the writ petitioner.
As such, there is no scope for any interference by this Court in respect of demolition notice issued by the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, being the subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ proceeding.
4It will, however, be open to the writ petitioner to challenge the order dated 25th September, 2014, before the competent authority in accordance with law.
The original records produced before this Court, in terms of the order dated 8th August, 2016, are directed to be returned to Mr. Pranab Kumar Datta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the State.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.)