High Court Of Calcutta
SUSANTA CHATTERJI
SUNIL KUMAR MONDAL - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction . Of .
Decided On : 08/22/1988
DARJEELING GURKHA HILL COUNCIL ACCORD - VALIDITY OF THE ACCORD - ARTICLES 3, 14, 21, 29, 30, 352, 356, 368 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - WEST BENGAL HILL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1981 - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners filed a public interest litigation challenging the proposed Darjeeling Gurkha Hill Council Accord, alleging that it violated the Constitution and would lead to communal disharmony. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with the law and a writ of certiorari to obtain the records and proceedings relating to the proposed agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Memorandum of Settlement was not legally enforceable and had no legal effect until appropriate legislation was enacted. The court held that the petitioners' apprehensions about the accord were premature and that the legislature would have to examine the accord in detail before passing any legislation.
Issues: 1. Whether the proposed Darjeeling Gurkha Hill Council Accord violated the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioners had the locus standi to challenge the proposed accord? 3. Whether the court had the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Memorandum of Settlement was not legally enforceable and had no legal effect until appropriate legislation was enacted. 2. The court held that the petitioners had the locus standi to challenge the proposed accord as they were acting in the public interest. 3. The court held that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, but that it would be premature to do so at this stage.
Final Decision: The court rejected the writ petition without any order as to costs, holding that it was premature to entertain the petition at this stage. The court clarified that its rejection of the petition did not decide anything about the proposed steps to be taken by the respondents subsequent to the signing of the accord.
( 1 ) THE present writ petition is one of the glaring examples as to how each and every problem of life is brought to the Court to find its solution. The writ petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for issuing a writ of mandamus calling upon the respondents and each one of them and their agents to show cause as to why the respondent's should not be directed to act in accordance with law and also a writ of certiorari calling upon respondents to certify and to transmit all the records and/or proceedings and papers relating to the proposed agreement of "darjeeling Gurkha Hill Council" to this Court so that the members of the public may get information of the said proposed agreement and for an interim order directing the respondents and other Officers to take immediate steps for not to use the word "gurkha" in the proposed agreement of Darjeeling Hill Council and to take such other necessary steps which would be for the interest of the public at large.
( 2 ) IT is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner not for their individual interest, but for the sake of the country at large have filed the present writ petition by way of a public interest litigation, stating that the respondents, namely, Nos. 1 and 2, being Union of India and the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 being the Government of West Bengal and its Secretary, Home Department, are taking steps contrary to and inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution of India and/or the act caused to have been done by the said respondents which would result in spreading communal feeling and the word specially used in the proposed agreement being 'gorkha' should be avoided otherwise by conceding to such demand, the steps have been taken in the way of dividing the country and the entire interest of the State is in jeopardy. These facts have been elaborated by making various averments by giving examples of Jharkhand activities and other political activities within the State. It is stated that by conceding the demand of a section of people, who have no locus standi to enter into such agreement and/or accord, the spirit of the Constitution is being violated and the people at large have been kept in dark to know as to the whereabouts of the proposed agreement and by suppressing all facts and by keeping in darkness such steps have been taking prejudicing the interest of the people of the State and in particular the interest a large section of the people is affected.
( 3 ) UPON notice to the respondents the present writ petition is being moved.
( 4 ) MR. Somnath Chatterjee, the Learned Counsel is appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Kundu, Learned Advocate is appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
( 5 ) IN course of hearing the Learned Counsel for the respective parties at length and while going through the pleadings, it appears that at the outset a copy of the impugned Memorandum of Settlement has been produced before this Court. Mr. Kanak Kumar Chatterjee, Learned Advocate for the petitioner has also got an opportunity to go through the said Memorandum of Settlement. Mr. K. K. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner has strongly argued that a prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner for issuance of a Rule and to pass an interim order in terms of prayer (c) of the writ petition. He has also submitted that if already the agreement has been signed, this Court should pass an appropriate order restraining the respondents from taking any step to implement the said Memorandum of Settlement and/or the agreement and/or the accord in the proper perspective. In elaborating his submission, he has submitted that the petitioners have got locus standi to maintain this application and this writ petition should be considered as a public interest litigation, and the Court's power are wide enough to investigate the matter and to question the step taken by the respondents in entering into such Memorandum of Set
REFERRED TO : Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors.
Ogla Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
Bishambhu Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P.
Dinesh Chandra Pande v. Chowdhury Charan Singh and Ors.
Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab
Ram Kishore Sen v Union of India and Ors.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.