Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Samsi Fishery Self Help Group (Shg) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 March, 2019
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder
And
The Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee
MAT 821 of 2018
With
CAN 6062 of 2018
Samsi Fishery Self Help Group (SHG)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the appellant/ : Mr. Asit Kumar Bhattacharyya
applicant
For the State : Mr. Raja Saha,
Ms. Joyee Maity
For the respondent : Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya
no.9 Heard on : 08.01.2019, 24.01.2019, 13.02.2019, 20.02.2019 & 18.03.2019 Judgment on : 18th March, 2019.
Biswanath Somadder, ACJ. :-
By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.
The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 26th July, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 7079 (W) of 2018 (Samsi Fishery Self Help Group vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors). 2
By the said judgment and order, the writ petition, being WP 7079 (W) of 2018, was dismissed for such reasons as stated therein.
The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner, namely, Samsi Fishery Self Help Group.
For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is set out hereinbelow in its entirety:-
"The writ petitioner was originally declared a successful tenderer eligible to the awarded four ponds for pisciculture under Ratua I Block in the District-Malda.
Litigation commenced before this Court in relation to award of tender was initiated by the second successful bidder. The said litigation ended in an order dated 11th January, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in FMA 50 of 2018. The said order accepted a report of the District Magistrate, Malda which confirmed that the writ petitioner 'Samsi Fishery Self Help Group' are not engaged in any fishery activity in the Ratua-Block I as on 25th April, 2017. The report (undated) of the Magistrate is annexed at page 77 of the writ application.
Despite the above, the writ petitioner says that the order of the Division Bench is confined only to three ponds and not to two ponds being ponds at serial nos. 61 and 65. He, therefore, asks for physical possession of these two ponds to be given to him to carry out pisciculture.
I find from the Division Bench Judgement as also the report of the District Magistrate, Malda (undated) that no specific pond is referred to. In fact the clear opinion of the Magistrate was that the writ petitioner was never engaged in any fishing activity in the said Ratua Block-I, which was an essential pre-condition to participate in the tender in question.
In those circumstances, the writ petitioner's claim therefore, cannot be accepted.
W.P. 7079 (W) of 2018 is hereby dismissed.3
There will be no order as to costs."
In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, interference is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts of the instant case, we do not notice any palpable infirmity or perversity on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. As such, we do not propose to interfere with the impugned judgment and order which has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons.
The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and stands accordingly dismissed along with the application for stay.
Dismissal of the appeal, however, shall not preclude the appellant/writ petitioner, namely, Samsi Fishery Self Help Group, from making a representation in respect of the two Jalkars, namely, Laila Bisan Beel Jalkar and Kotkibari Gutichana Jalkar, under serial nos. 61 and 65 respectively, before the District Magistrate, Malda, ventilating his grievances. If such representation is made by the appellant/writ petitioner to the District Magistrate, Malda, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
(Biswanath Somadder, ACJ.) I agree.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.) sb./01