Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Sunil Kumar Sahoo vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 July, 2010
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.
W.P. No. 14752 (W) of 2010
Sri Sunil Kumar Sahoo
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. P.B.Chakraborty
Mr. Amit Banerjee
... for the petitioner.
Heard on: July 15, 2010.
Judgment on: July 15, 2010.
The Court: In the petitioner's previous petition under art. 226 this Court directed
the respondents therein to consider the petitioner's representation dated August 16, 2008
for grant of a temporary licence to run a cinema hall. The order was made on June 17, 2009.
This art.226 petition has been filed alleging that the Additional District Magistrate (G), Purba Medinipur, though carried out the decision making process, has not yet given the decision. Counsel invites me to make an order directing the Additional District Magistrate (G), Purba Medinipur, who issued a notice dated November 18, 2009(at p.28), to communicate his decision.
It appears that since in the order dated June 17, 2009 no time was fixed for giving the decision, the Additional District Magistrate, who issued the notice dated November 2 18, 2009 in compliance with the order, has taken the matter casually. Though he was required to give the decision within a reasonable period, he has not given the decision till date as stated by the petitioner in the petition. The approach of the Additional District Magistrate is not appreciated by this Court.
The petitioner ought to have initiated contempt proceedings. But he has brought a fresh art.226 petition. I think it will not be appropriate to dismiss this petition on this ground. Dismissal will cause patent injustice to the petitioner and encourage casual administrative approach such as the one of the Additional District Magistrate who has not given his decision even after expiration of around seven months from the date he issued the notice. I think in the interest of justice the Additional District Magistrate should be directed to give his decision at once.
For these reasons, I dispose of the petition directing the Additional District Magistrate (G), Purba Medinipur to communicate his decision in compliance with the order of this Court dated June 17, 2009 within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order. Since the petitioner was heard as back as June 17, 2009, before giving the decision, a reasoned one, the Additional District Magistrate shall hear the petitioner afresh. No costs. Certified xerox.
sh ( Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J)