Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mushtaque Ahmed vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 August, 2016
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
19
04.08.2016
pg.
WP 14180 (W) of 2016 Mushtaque Ahmed Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Abhik Sarkar ... For the petitioner Mr. Sushovan Sengupta Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay ... For the State Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record.
The writ petitioner has approached this Court in another round of litigation. The last time he approached this Court, he filed a writ petition, being WP 277 (W) of 2016, which was disposed of by an order dated 3rd February, 2016, whereby the Sub-Divisional Controller (Food & Supplies), Serampore, Hooghly, was directed to give a fresh hearing to him within a certain time-frame and communicate the reasoned decision to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. The concerned authority passed an order on 30th March, 2016, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 3rd February, 2016, which is now the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ proceeding. 2 A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same has been rendered in conformity with the order dated 3rd February, 2016, passed by this Court in WP 277 (W) of 2016. The impugned order is also supported with cogent reasons.
The writ Court ought not to transpose itself as an appellate authority over a particular authority which has performed its obligation to abide by the specific directions given by a Court and rendered a decision in the matter supported with cogent reasons. The discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be invoked in such cases, unless of course, the decision so rendered by the concerned authority was palpably wrong or arbitrary or perverse or smacked of malafide motive or had been rendered without adhering to the specific directions given by the Court. In this context, one may take notice of the judgment of this Court rendered in Amarendranath Mandal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 Calcutta 56.
None of the exceptions elucidated in the judgment referred above - which would allow interference by the writ Court - are present in the facts of the instant case. As observed hereinbefore, the impugned order dated 30th March, 2016, 3 passed by the Sub-Divisional Controller (Food & Supplies), Serampore, Hooghly, is supported with cogent reasons and has been rendered in terms of the specific directions given by this Court as contained in the order dated 3rd February, 2016.
It is also quite evident from the records that the writ petitioner has developed a habit of filing successive writ petitions, each one of them centering around the same issue, i.e., with regard to grant of kerosene oil dealership licence. It is as if the writ petitioner has decided to keep on moving this Court, by filing successive writ petitions, till such time an order is passed by this Court which enures to his benefit (emphasis supplied). This sort of an attitude of a litigant is preciously what has been frowned upon by the Supreme Court in several of its judgments. In Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs. K. Parasaran & Ors., reported in (1996) 5 SCC 530, it was observed that no litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Courts' time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. His easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions. This observation has also been reflected in a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 398, while it was considering as to whether there should be any restraint on a 4 writ petitioner in such a fact situation or whether he should be permitted to abuse the judicial process as he likes (emphasis in original). The aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court were considered and relied upon by this Court in Debashis Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in (2013) 1 CLT 25 (HC) = (2013) 1 WBLR (Cal) 530.
From the pleadings it also appears that not only the writ petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order dated 30th March, 2016, passed by the Sub-Divisional Controller (Food & Supplies), Serampore, Hooghly, but has also prayed for consideration of his representation dated 20th May, 2015.
The Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147 has, inter alia, held to the effect that a representation may be considered by the competent authority only if it is so provided under the statutory provisions and the Court should not pass any order directing any authority to decide such representation. There is no such statutory provision for the competent authority to consider the writ petition's representation dated 20th May, 2015.
5
For reasons stated above, this Court is unable to grant any relief to the petitioner, as prayed for. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.)