Back
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content so I can analyze it and generate the key points with the appropriate references.
JUDGMENT
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. This appeal has been preferred to assail an order dated 20th March 2009 by the High Court at Calcutta in W.P.L.R.T. No.54 of 2009. The High Court placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of that very Court in the case of Manju Banerjee v. Debabrata Pal reported in (2006) 1 WBLR (Cal) 147 and held the writ petition preferred by the appellant to be not maintainable.
2. The issue raised in this appeal is whether a writ application is maintainable against an order of West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), refusing to initiate contempt proceedings against an authority arrayed as respondent no.5 before the Tribunal. Such pristine question of law does not require any reference to the facts which led the appellant to file O.A.No.2744 of 2007 corresponding to M.A.No.24 of 2008 before the Tribunal with a prayer to initiate proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us the Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Manju Banerjee (supra) and has submitted that the view taken therein that there is no right of
L. Chandra Kumar VS Union Of India - 1997 3 Supreme 147: This case appears to be bad law. It summarizes holdings from *L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India* (1997), including that clauses 2(d) of Article 323A and 3(d) of Article 323B excluding High Court/Supreme Court jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 and 32 are unconstitutional. This directly conflicts with *Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy v. State of West Bengal (2015) 12 SCC 514*, which is repeatedly cited in the list as authority on writ jurisdiction over tribunals' refusal to initiate contempt proceedings, implying the exclusion is valid in that context. The snippet in Vinod Kumar Gupta VS Veer Bahadur Yadav, S. D. M. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 653 references *Roy v. State of Orissa* with "Judgment of High Court set aside," but the context aligns with overruling broad writ access against tribunal orders.
State Of Maharashtra VS Mahboob S. Allibhoy - 1996 4 Supreme 55: This case is bad law. It states "No appeal is maintainable against an order dropping proceedings for contempt or refusing to initiate proceedings for contempt," directly contradicted by *Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy v. State of West Bengal (2015) 12 SCC 514*, which holds that a writ petition may lie against such tribunal orders under Articles 226/227 (see UNION OF INDIA VS PANKAJ DHAR DUBEY - 2017 0 Supreme(All) 841, Mcdonalds India Private Limited VS Union of India - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 984).
R. Nagarajan VS P. Karthikeyan Nair - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 881: Followed; cites *Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy v. State of West Bengal (2015) 12 SCC 514* as apposite authority on writ applications against tribunal's refusal to initiate contempt.
HK Kalchuri and Education Trust VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2016 0 Supreme(MP) 824: Followed; references *Nath Roy vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2015) 12 SCC 514* alongside other cases in response filings.
Kurapati Steevan VS Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Labour Employment - 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 513: Followed; describes *Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy v. State of West Bengal, (2015) 12 SCC 514* as dealing with writ against tribunal's contempt refusal.
Anil Kumar Dubey VS Pradeep Kumar Shukla - Crimes (2017): Followed; cites *Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy v. State of West Bengal and others, (2015) 12 SCC 514* as very recent Supreme Court authority relying on *Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd.*
Anil Kumar Dubey VS Pradeep Kumar Shukla - 2017 0 Supreme(Chh) 51: Followed; identical to Anil Kumar Dubey VS Pradeep Kumar Shukla - Crimes (2017), citing the case as recent authority relying on *Midnapore*.
UNION OF INDIA VS PANKAJ DHAR DUBEY - 2017 0 Supreme(All) 841: Followed; holds that writ petition may lie against tribunal's refusal to issue contempt notices, as per *Sujitendra* (2015(12) SCC 514).
Mcdonalds India Private Limited VS Union of India - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 984: Followed; discusses maintainability of writ under Articles 226/227 against tribunal orders in *Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., (2015) 12 SCC 514*.
SUBHASH CHANDRA GARG, SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW VS VIJITH KRISHNAN S/O. SH. KRISHNAKKUTTY MARAR - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 149: Followed; reiterates principle from *Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy v. State of West Bengal & Others [(2015) 12 SCC 514]* in paragraph 5.
Elmas Fernandes VS State of Goa - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1619: Followed; relies on *Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy* for High Court's power of judicial review under Articles 226/227.
Vinod Kumar Gupta VS Veer Bahadur Yadav, S. D. M. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 653: Followed; cites *Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy vs. State of West Bengal and others reported in (2015) 12 SCC 514* while considering similar issues.
D. N. Taneja VS Bhajan Lal - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 366: Neutral; states a general rule on appeals under section 19(1) of Contempt of Courts Act without indication of approval, criticism, or negative treatment.
None identified. All cases have clear treatment indicators based on context and keywords like "reliance," "very recently," "held that," and contradictory holdings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
