Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Keshab Lal Pradhan vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 January, 2018
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1
70 January WP 16032(W) of 2017
AN 08, 2018
Keshab Lal Pradhan
-vs.-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sumit Ray
... for the petitioner
Mr. Dwarika Nath Mukherjee
Mr. Janardan Mondal
... for the State
Affidavit of service filed be kept with the records.
The petitioner seeks migration from one college to
another. He was respondent no.8 in WP 7668(W)/2015 (Debangshu
Agrahari vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). Debangshu Agrahari is the private respondent no.7 in this writ petition.
Mr. Ray, learned advocate appears for the petitioner and submits, impugned order dated 1st February, 2016 passed by the Authority saying that Debangshu Agrahari's candidature is not considered as contender of vacant seat earmarked for Central Government nominee (for the State of Tripura only) cannot be sustained since the said order did not consider the candidature of the petitioner as well. The petitioner was not called for hearing though there was direction to that effect by order of Court. He submits, such ought to have been done pursuant to the said directions in order dated 10th December, 2015 by which the said writ petition being WP 7668(W)/2015 was disposed of. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits, the question of considering the candidature of the petitioner did not arise when the candidature of the petitioner in the said writ petition could not be considered. 2 On perusal of the said order dated 10th December, 2015, this court thinks fit to extract the following therefrom:
"In the said conspectus of fact this court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ application pending any further and the same needs to be relegated to the respondent no. 3 for consideration of the claim of the petitioner in strict consonance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent no. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner towards admission at JBRSAMCH upon migration, strictly in consonance with the order dated 31st August 2015 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the private respondent No. 8 and the respondent nos. 6 and 7 and to pass a final order, in accordance with law and to communicate the said order to the petitioner and the private respondent herein. "
The direction relied upon by the petitioner was in the context of consideration of the private respondent's claim. The private respondent, in spite of service, is not represented. When the private respondent's claim has been rejected as cannot be considered, the question of the said order suffering from violation of principles of natural justice as having been passed behind the back of the present petitioner, is not such as to vitiate the same. By the said order the petitioner's candidature was not directed to be considered. As such, though the petitioner was not heard, no order has been made against him to be said to be made behind his back without hearing him. 3
This court notices that the petitioner applied for contempt before the learned Judge who had passed the said order dated 10th December, 2015. During the pendency of the contempt application, the impugned order came to be passed. The petitioner complained that no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to issuance of the impugned order but the said learned Judge by order dated 4th May, 2017, dismissed the contempt application by holding that once an order has been passed by a party to a proceeding on the basis of direction issued by court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. When no violation of the directions made by the said learned Judge was found in contempt, that lends support to the view taken by this court.
For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. It is made clear, however, that the dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner to apply for his candidature. Affidavits have not been called for and as such the allegations made cannot be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.)