Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sankar Mandal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 June, 2017
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswanath Somadder
And
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sankar Acharyya
CAN 4709 of 2017
in
MAT 737 of 2017
Sankar Mandal
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the appellant/applicant: Mr. Pratip Kumar Chatterjee
For the State: Mr. Subhabrata Dutta
Mr. Benazir Ahmed
For the respondent nos.
8 to 10 & 12 to 14: Mr. Mihir Kundu
For the respondent nos.15-23: Mr. Anindya Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kalyan Kr. Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arunava Ghosh
Mr. Anindya Lahiri
Mr. Puspal Chakraborty
Ms. Pranati Das
Heard on: 19.06.2017.
Judgment on: 19th June, 2017.
Biswanath Somadder, J.
By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.
The instant appeal arises out of a common judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge while disposing of two writ petitions, being WP 11388 (W) of 2017 (Sankar Mandal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and WP 12468 (W) of 2017 (Parimal Sarkar vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). This appeal has been taken out by Sankar Mandal, being the writ petitioner in WP 11388 (W) of 2017.
The only issue which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the instant case is whether the question raised by the appellant herein with regard to genuinity and authenticity of the signatures of the requisitionists requires to be reconsidered even after the learned Single Judge proceeded to go into the issue specifically and deal with the same extensively.
In our view, the learned Single Judge having given the respondents an opportunity to clarify the position by filing separate affidavits stating that they had signed on the said requisition and, therefore, the signatures appended were genuine and the statement of the writ petitioner was not true and incorrect, does not merit any further reconsideration. Even if the appellant, Sankar Mandal's representation is pending before the District Magistrate of Murshidabad, its pendency cannot render nugatory the finding of the writ Court, which is quite clear and precise.
We are also of the view that since Sankar Mandal had raised disputed questions of fact, the writ Court ought not to have even entertained his writ petition. Be that as it may, in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed in the impugned judgment and order. No such palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. The impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons and, as such, does not merit any interference whatsoever.
For reasons stated above, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.) I agree.
(Sankar Acharyya, J.) pg .