Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bhramar Mondal & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 December, 2017
Author: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
1
07.12.17
cl 41
ab
W.P. 26615(W) of 2017
Bhramar Mondal & Anr.
-Vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Ujjal Roy,
Mr. Arpa Chakraborty,
... for the petitioners
Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
On November 14, 2017, I directed the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 9 to file a
report in the form of an affidavit in response to the allegations made in the writ petition, on the next date of hearing. I also directed the petitioners to communicate the gist of the order to the respondents, particularly the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 9. From the affidavit of service, it appears that such communication was received by the respective respondents by the last week of November, 2017. Over and above that the learned advocate for the petitioners has personally served a copy upon Mr. Jyoti Prakas Chatterjee, the learned advocate for the State on November 23, 2017. Today when the matter is taken up, none appears on behalf of the respondents to oppose this application. Consequently, the report as directed earlier is not forthcoming.
Since no report in the form of an affidavit from the respondents is forthcoming and since no accommodation has been sought for on behalf of them, there is no point in keeping the writ petition pending. The petitioner No. 1 submits that his application for providing employment in the land-loser category 2 had been turned down on the ground of his age. However, his wife is still within the maximum age limit for being provided with an employment. The petitioner No. 1 made an application to the respondent No. 2 requesting him to consider the candidature of his wife in case the petitioner No. 1 is found overaged. The petitioner No. 2 also made an application to the respondent No. 2 for providing her an employment in the land-loser category.
At this stage because of the non-submission of any report, Mr. Roy, the learned advocate for the petitioners cannot pray for any order other than the direction upon the respondent No. 2 to consider the representations and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. The Court is also equally helpless to enter into the merits of the case unless it decides to give the writ petition more than its share of legitimate longevity.
In such view of it, I dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of the representations made by the petitioners which have been jointly annexed to the writ petition as 'Annexure P-10' within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving both the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. The respondent No. 2 shall call for the records and shall decide the eligibility of either of the petitioners to get an employment in the land-loser category in accordance with the scheme and the rules framed therefor. The respondent No. 2 shall also be entitled to give a hearing to any other person or persons, claimant or claimants, if there be any, as he thinks fit and proper.
In case the respondent No. 2 is of the view that any one of the petitioners may be provided with an employment under the relevant category, he shall pass necessary and consequential orders so that the subsequent steps by the other appropriate authorities may be taken without any further delay. In the event the respondent No. 2 is of the opinion that the petitioners' representations are not worthy of acceptance on merits, he shall dispose of the said representation by a 3 reasoned order and shall communicate the same to the petitioner No. 1 within a week thereafter.
The petitioners are directed to send a copy of 'Annexure P-10' in its entirety to the respondent No. 2 while communicating this order.
Considering the fact that the concerned land was acquired in the year 2008, I direct the respondent No. 2 to treat the timeframe fixed by this Court as mandatory.
Since the respondents despite being given opportunities by the Court did not appear in this case, there is no question of directing that the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been denied by them.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti,J)