Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Prasenjit Bag vs Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors on 29 March, 2017

Author: Harish Tandon

Bench: Harish Tandon

                                             1


19   29.03.2017                             WP 9195(W) of 2017
AN    Ct. No. 2
                                             Prasenjit Bag
                                                  vs.
                                    Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors.


                  Mr.   Pramit Roy
                  Mr.   Anubhab Sinha
                  Mr.   Uttam Kumar Chakraborty
                  Mr.   Kalpita Paul
                                           .... For the petitioner

                  Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
                  Mr. Sanjib Mukherjee
                                            .... For respondents no. 30-34,

37 & 38 Mr. Tapash Bhattacharya Mr. Sibasish Ghosh .... For respondents no. 25-29, 35, 36 Mr. Ashok Banerjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. N. C. Bihani Ms. Papiya Banerjee Bihani .... For the HMC Mrs. Anjushree Mukherjee Ms. Nafisa Begum .... For the State Affidavit of service filed today be kept with the record.

The instant writ petition is filed challenging the Memo No. 182/16-17 dated August 4, 2016 passed by the Commissioner, Howrah Municipal Corporation whereby and whereunder the property of the petitioner was 2 declared to have vested with the State.

A preliminary objection is taken by the private respondents as well as the Corporation that the petitioner is indulged in forum shopping and another writ petition challenging the self-same memo is pending before Justice Basak and the same is fixed tomorrow. The copy of the writ petition being WP 8274(W) of 2017 filed by one Tapan Bodhak is handed over to this court wherefrom this court finds that though the reliefs are claimed under Right to Information Act but one of the reliefs relates to the cancellation and setting aside the memo dated August 4, 2016.

Technically, this court does not find that the classification indicated in the writ petition can be said to be purposely made to avoid particular court and the action of the petitioner can be brought within the ambit of the forum shopping, yet, this court finds that if one of the reliefs in both the writ petitions is common and identical, it is prudent that the writ petition is heard by the same Hon'ble Judge to avoid conflicting decision.

In view of the above, let this matter be released from my Bench and be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate order. 3 (Harish Tandon, J.)