Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pradip Kumar Khatua & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 May, 2015
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
1
04/05/2015
AJ.
W.P.L.R.T. No. 27 of 2015
Pradip Kumar Khatua & Ors.
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Samiran Giri.
........For the Petitioners.
Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata.
.....For the State.
Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, learned Counsel appearing for the State expresses helplessness
and states that he has not been able to comply our order dated 26.03.2015 as he has not received
any co-operation from the respondent nos.3 and 4 (meaning thereby the Sub-Divisional Land and
Land Reforms Officer, Egra, Purba Medinipore and Sub-Revenue Officer-II -cum- Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Egra-II). Such a fact cannot be taken lightly because the grievance of Mr. Samiran Giri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that a Judgement delivered by the learned Special Judge, Medinipore passed on 20th February, 1963 has not yet been complied with. On the basis of such a grievance we had directed Mr. Mahata to seek a report from the said respondent nos.3 and 4 to explain as to why that Judgement has not yet been complied with and which was delivered as E.A. Appeal No.973-1029 of 1961.
Expressing his helplessness, Mr. Mahata, learned Counsel has prayed that he be allowed to recuse himself from this case.
Recusal by a Government Advocate on account of non-cooperation of Government Officers is not an option. The Government Advocates of this Court are Officers of the High Court and if they want and/or request co-operation, then each and every Government Officer has the onerous responsibility to respectfully comply with requests for instructions made by such Government 2 Officers and any deviation from this principle would, in the opinion of this Court, amount to creating an obstruction in the administration of justice. As a consequence, this would also amount to a serious contempt of Court.
We, therefore, direct the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipore to ensure that these two Officers are present in Court on the next date of hearing. Taking into consideration the attitude shown by these two sub-ordinate Officers, we direct the said District Magistrate, also to be present before us along with the respondent nos.3 and 4 and give suggestions to us as to what departmental action would he like to initiate against them apart from the usual punishment for obstructing the administration of justice.
The Government Pleader is directed to take all steps so that Mr. Mahata is able to effectively appear before us on the next date of hearing.
After we had dictated this order, Mr. Mahata said that being helpless and utterly frustrated, he has returned the brief to the Government pleader. We cannot allow the insubordination of Government Officers to treat Government Lawyers in such manner. The rule and majesty of the Court must be protected but the majesty of Lawyers must also be protected by the Court. It is in that background that we direct the Government Pleader to co-operate with Mr. Mahata notwithstanding he having returned the brief as has been submitted by Mr. Mahata.
The matter shall appear on 12th of May, 2015 at 10.30 A.M. ( Tapen Sen, J. ) ( Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. ) 3