Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Rama Prasad Sarkar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 June, 2017
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
16.06.17
Item No.07
Ct. No.01
Krishnendu
W.P.No. 15306 (W) of 2017
In re: Rama Prasad Sarkar
- Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
And
In re: An oral application for addition of party,
And
In re: Sanjib Kumar Dan
Applicant
Mr. Rama Prasad Sarkar (Petitioner) appears in-
person
Mr. Kishore Dutta, ld.A.G.
Mr. Abhratosh Majumder,ld.A.A.G.
Mr. Debasish Ghosh
Ms.Pramiti Bandopadhyay
For the State
Mr. Y.J. Dastoor
Mr. Phiroze Edulji
Mr. Rajdeep Biswas
Mr. Ranajit Roy
For the proposed Applicant,
Sri Sanjib Kumar Dan
Mr. Dastoor, the learned counsel submits on an oral application that Sri Sanjib
Kumar Dan, a practising advocate of this Court, be permitted to be added as a party
respondent.
Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we allow the request made in the oral application by Mr. Dastoor in view of the exceptional circumstances, which exist, in the present petition. A similar application, being CAN 12242 of 2016, has been allowed in respect of W.P.23617 (W) of 2013.
The State has not opposed this application made orally by Mr. Dastoor. Accordingly, Sri Sanjib Kumar Dan be added as a party respondent to the present writ petition, being W.P. 15306 (W) of 2017.
2Amendment to be carried out within a week.
(Nishita Mhatre, A.C.J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.) 3 16.06.17 Item No.07 Ct. No.01 Krishnendu W.P.No. 15306 (W) of 2017 In re: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed on 09.06.2017.
And In re: Rama Prasad Sarkar
- Versus -
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rama Prasad Sarkar (Petitioner) appears in-
person Mr. Kishore Dutta, ld. A.G. Mr. Abhratosh Majumder,ld. A.A.G. Mr. Debasish Ghosh Ms.Pramiti Bandopadhyay For the State Mr. Y.J. Dastoor Mr. Phiroze Edulji Mr. Rajdeep Biswas Mr. Ranajit Roy For the added respondent The grievance in this writ petition is that the Gorka Janmukti Morcha (in short, G.J.M.) has organized a bandh since 9th June, 2017 which has paralyzed the working in the hill area, more specifically, in Darjeeling. Not only the residents of Darjeeling, but the tourists have been gravely affected. This is the prime season for tourism and by calling such a bandh, the life and economy in the district of Darjeeling have been greatly disturbed and disrupted.
By an order dated 7th August, 2013 in W.P. 23617 (W) of 2013, in which a similar prayer was made after an indefinite bandh was called by the G.J.M., the Division Bench of this Court directed the State to take necessary action so that no adverse impact should be felt by the common people in respect of the functioning of essential services due to the illegal and disruptive measures adopted by the G.J.M. Those directions were as follows:
4
(1) State Government must ensure that while organizing bandh no use of force or intimidation is made, no interference with road and rail traffic or free movement of the citizens and/or goods is made.
(2) State Government to ensure that all public transports including the State vehicles run smoothly in the District of Darjeeling during bandh.
(3) State Government to take appropriate action against the person/persons concerned indulging in stoppage or obstruction to the road, rail and air traffic or free movement of the citizens and/or goods in the area in question.
(4) Essential services like telephone, tele communication, water supply, milk distribution, power supply, fire services, newspapers, hospitals and other government offices are kept open and function effectively and adequate protection be given to such institutions so as to ensure that they run smoothly. No violence or vandalism be permitted in public places and/or government institutions. (5) Adequate protection to vital installations of importance be provided. It should be ensured that no damage to public properties is caused and those indulging in damage to public properties, be dealt with in accordance with law.
(6) Let adequate police arrangement be made at the public places, main roads, main junctions, hospitals, courts, schools, colleges etc. and it be ensured that they function normally.
The Division Bench had directed that a compliance report be submitted by the State. Accordingly, the report was submitted indicating that several persons were arrested and criminal cases had been lodged against them.
Subsequently, the State filed an application, being CAN 9109 of 2013, claiming damages of `69.163 crores from the organizer of the bandh as they had violated the order of the Court dated 14th 5 August, 2013. The order of the High Court was challenged by the G. J.M. by preferring Special Leave Petitions, being S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 27996-27997 of 2013. On 16th September, 2013 the Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petitions without interfering with the decision of this Court dated 7th August, 2013. However, liberty was granted to the G.J.M., the petitioner therein, to file a response to the report of the Secretary (Coordination) Home Department, who had filed the report before this Court regarding the bandh and the loss/damage caused.
It does not appear from the record that the officers of G.J.M. have filed any such objection to the report or a reply to the aforesaid application filed by the State seeking compensation of `69.163 crores.
A contempt petition, being CPAN 1591 of 2013, has also been filed in the other writ petition, being W.P. 23617 (W) of 2013, where notices have been issued to the alleged contemnors, who were members of the G.J.M. They have not cared to respond to the said notice.
No action has been taken nor is there any direction passed by this Court to pay the damages as yet. Emboldened by the proverbial delays in Court, the G.J.M. has called a fresh bandh from 9th June, 2017 which is reflected in the present writ petition, being W.P.15306 (W) of 2017. The bandh is to continue indefinitely.
We are of the opinion, therefore, that a similar order, as was passed in W.P. 23617 (W) of 2013, should be passed in the present writ petition.
Accordingly we issue the following directions:
(1) State Government to ensure that all public transport including the State vehicles run smoothly in the District of Darjeeling during bandh. (2) State Government to take appropriate action against the person/persons concerned indulging in stoppage or obstruction of the road, rail and air traffic or free movement of the citizens and/or goods in the area in question.6
(3) State Government shall take appropriate measures to ensure that essential services like telephones, tele communication, water supply, milk distribution, power supply, fire services, newspapers, hospitals and other government offices are kept open and function effectively. Adequate protection shall be given to such institutions so as to ensure that they run smoothly. No violence or vandalism be permitted in public places and/or government institutions.
(4) Adequate protection to vital installations of importance be provided. The State shall ensure that no damage to public properties is caused and those indulging in damage to public properties, be dealt with in accordance with law.
(5) Adequate police arrangements be made at public places, main roads, main junctions, hospitals, courts, schools, colleges etc. so that they function normally. (6) To quantify the loss/damages caused at the bandh by the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8.
We direct the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8, who are the private respondents, to file an affidavit as to why they should not be asked to compensate the State for the damage of public and private properties, besides the economic loss to the State due to the illegal bandh organized by them.
The State shall also file a report, through the Principal Secretary (Home) indicating the loss of public and private properties, loss to the State exchequer and the gross loss suffered by the State and the public in general due to such bandh.
Despite service, nobody appears for the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8. Hence, notice be served on the learned advocate, who has represented them in the contempt proceedings.
It is made clear that on the returnable date if neither the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 nor their advocate are present, we will pass necessary orders without hearing them. 7
We make it amply clear that this order has been passed only to alleviate the hardship caused to the people at large during the bandh.
List the matter on next Friday, 23rd June, 2017.
(Nishita Mhatre, A.C.J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)