Gauhati High Court
Pranab Jyoti Phukan vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 14 February, 2020
Author: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Bench: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010036132020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 1064/2020
1:PRANAB JYOTI PHUKAN
S/O LATE DURGA PRASAD PHUKAN, UDAIGURI, KHARGULI, GUWAHATI,
DIST-KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN-781004
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, DISPUR,
GUWHATI-781006
2:THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
ASSAM
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI-781021
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM (THROUGH THE MEMBER SECRETARY)
3:THE CHAIRMAN
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI-781021
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
4:THE MEMBER SECRETARY
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI-781021
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
5:SIDDARTHA BARUAH
R.K.B. RESIDENCY
Page No.# 2/4
FLAT NO.-4/C
NARIKALBARI
2ND BYE LANE
GUWAHATI-78102
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K K MAHANTA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
ORDER
14.02.2020 Heard Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. P. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dubey the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent No. 5 and Ms. D. D. Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 1.
The petitioner was functioning as the Legal Advisor cum Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board, Assam for the last several years. Vide Notification dated. 12.10.2018, the respondent No. 4 invited Expression of Interest (EoI) for Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board, Assam. The EoI must be accompanied with the following documents:
1. Resume containing recent passport size photograph at the right side corner on the 1 st page.
2. Copy of the Registration Certificate of Bar Council.
3. Experience Certificate.
4. List of cases where he/she has appeared as counsel for the last 3 years with special mention of the cases related to prevention & control of pollution/protection of environment.
Page No.# 3/4
5. Proposal for fee in details.
6. Any other relevant information.
Vide office order dated 03.12.2019, the petitioner and the private respondent Not. 5 were both appointed as the Legal Advisor cum Standing Counsel for conducting the court cases until further order. Vide another order dated 07.02.2020, the petitioner was released from the duty of Legal Advisor cum Standing Counsel of the Board on technical ground with immediate effect.
Mr. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel submits that as the respondent No. 4 on behalf of the Board invited EoI for Standing Counsel in view of the same, the impugned order dated 07.02.2020, releasing the petitioner from the duty of the Board as Legal Advisor cum Standing Counsel on technical ground requires an in-depth enquiry inasmuch as the petitioner fulfills all the criteria in the notice for EoI and if at all the petitioner was found not responsive, the actual ground for non retaining the petitioner further ought to have been informed.
On the other hand, Mr. Dubey strongly objected against the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not aggrieved against such action on the part of the respondent Board rather the petitioner is aggrieved on some wrong perception about the role played by the private respondent No. 5. in ousting the petitioner. It is further stated that there are no pleading to that effect in order to show that there was any hand of the private respondent No. 5 in ousting the present petitioner. In other words it is the contention of Mr. Dubey that the petitioner has no locus standi at least for filing this writ petition against the private respondent No. 5.
Accordingly, let notice be issued.
Necessary extra copies be served on the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner shall take steps on the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by way of Dasti service after routing the same through the registry within a period of three days from today. Further the petitioner is also granted liberty to take steps on the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by way registered post with A/D within a period of three days from today.
Page No.# 4/4 Mr. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel sought for an interim protection by staying the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 which is opposed by Mr. Dubey.
The issue raised by Mr. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is in respect of the manner in which the petitioner was ousted by the impugned order dated 07.02.2020. Though there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner but if we consider the balance of convenience, the same lies in favour of the respondent Board. Vide order dated 03.12.2019, in partial modification of the order dated 25.03.2011, the petitioner along with private respondent No. 5 were appointed as Legal Advisor cum Standing Counsel. In that order, the said two advocates were kept as Legal Advisor cum Standing Counsel of the Board until further order. On the basis of some technical ground the petitioner was released. Under such circumstances, if the impugned order is stayed, it would amount to granting of the final relief at this interim stage without hearing the parties more specifically the respondents other than the respondent No. 5 and imposition of the status ante 07.02.2020. Moreover, there will be no irreparable loss on the part of the petitioner.
In view of the above, the interim reliefs as on date cannot be considered until the response of the respondents are put on record.
Accordingly, let returnable date for notice be on 19.02.2020. On the next date, on the response from the respondents, an endeavor shall be made for disposal of the writ petition if not, the interim prayer will be considered.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant