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 3, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Anar Sekh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 November, 2011

Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                     In The High Court At Calcutta
                           Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                    Appellate Side


Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                             W.P.No.18319(W) of 2011
                                     Anar Sekh
                                        -vs-
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors.

       Mr. Arindam Chatterjee                            ....for the petitioner

       Mr. Pratik Prakash Banerjee
       Mr. Supratim Dhar                                      ...for the State

       Mr. Tapan Chakraborty
       Mr. Md. Abdul Alim                        ...for the private respondent

Heard on : November 22, 2011 Judgment on : November 22, 2011 The Court : The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated November 8, 2011 is alleging inaction on the part of the Murshidabad District Level Authority under the West Bengal Ground Water Resources Management, Control and Regulation) Act, 2005 in that the Authority has not considered his complaint that the private respondent has wrongfully installed a submersible pump within 200 metres from his lawful pump.

No provision of the 2005 Act empowers the District Level Authority to take any action against the private respondent on the basis of the petitioner's complaint.

Under the circumstances, I am unable to see how the allegation of inaction can be sustained. If the private respondent has committed any offence, then the petitioner was free to approach the appropriate authority for prosecution.

If the private respondent has been wrongfully operating a pump, then the petitioner's remedy, if any, was before the Civil and Criminal Courts for removal of the pump. The petitioner was also free to bring the matter to the notice of the State Level Authority for action under s.10 of the Act.

For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.

(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sb