Asraful Haque vs The Union Of India & Ors on 23 November, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Asraful Haque vs The Union Of India & Ors on 23 November, 2010

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                                                   1




23.11.10                              In the High Court at Calcutta
  ss                                 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                             Appellate Side

                                      W.P. No. 22212 (W) of 2010
                                            Asraful Haque
                                                  v.
                                      The Union of India & Ors.

                         Mr Pratap Chatterjee
                         Mr Bipul Kumar Mondal ...for the petitioner.

                         Mr Krishna Das Poddar...for the respondents.

After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to admit this art.226 petition only at the instance of the first petitioner.

Mr Chatterjee, counsel for the petitioner, has argued ad follows. Under the agreement at p.21 the first petitioner was appointed as a Halt Contractor. The appointment was not for any fixed term. It can be terminated only if the petitioner contravenes any provision of the contract. The petitioner's appointment has not been terminated. The respondents have taken steps to appoint a Halt Contractor for the same place. The action is illegal. In a similar case this Court has made an order dated May 15, 2008 (at p.33).

Counsel for the respondents has argued as follows. It is wrong to say that the petitioner's appointment was for an indefinite period. The appointment can be terminated. It is true that the petitioner's appointment has not been termination. But that does not prevent the respondents from initiating process for appointing a Halt Contractor for the same place.

I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a strong case for admission and interim relief. My tentative opinion is that the appointment is not for a fixed term, and that unless the petitioner's appointment is terminated according to provisions of the contract, the respondents cannot appoint another Halt Contractor for the same place. In my opinion, the balance of convenience and inconvenience is entirely in favour of making a restraining order.

For these reasons, I admit the petition at the instance of the first petitioner. The petition in so far as the other petitioners are concerned is dismissed giving them liberty to move separate petitions on the same cause of action.

The respondents are restrained from taking any step for appointing a Halt Contractor for the place for which the petitioner was appointed. The interim order shall remain in force till the disposal of the petition. The interim order shall not prevent the respondents from taking other steps according to law.

The respondents shall file opposition within five weeks; reply, if any, shall be filed by one week thereafter. This order shall be communicated to all the respondents within a week and affidavit of service showing compliance shall be filed at the time of final hearing. Liberty to mention the matter for final hearing. Certified xerox.

(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)