Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Asok Kumar Ganguly, Aniruddha Bose
MD.YEASIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
M. A. T. 3363 Of 2005
Decided On : 04/12/2006
WEST BENGAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (MAINTENANCE AND CONTROL) ORDER, 2003 - Clause 21 - Interpretation - Time limit for completion of departmental proceedings - Mandatory or directory - Held, directory.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed against the writ petitioner/respondent, Sk. Mansur Haque, alleging irregularities in his functioning as a modified ration dealer. Based on the complaint, an enquiry was initiated, and an order of suspension was passed against him. The suspension order was challenged by Sk. Mansur Haque by filing a writ petition, which was admitted but no interim order was granted. An appeal was filed against the refusal of the interim order, which was also disposed of without interfering with the order of suspension. Meanwhile, the departmental proceeding initiated against Sk. Mansur Haque was not completed within the time specified in Clause 21 of the West Bengal Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003. Sk. Mansur Haque filed a second writ petition challenging the suspension order and the charges against him, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The present appeal was filed by the appellants, who had filed the complaint against Sk. Mansur Haque, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the time limit of three months mentioned in Clause 21 of the West Bengal Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 for completion of departmental proceedings is not mandatory. The Court observed that the intention of the statute is to be gathered from various factors, including the mischief which it seeks to address, the consequences of non-compliance, and the public interest involved. The Court found that the provision in Clause 21 is directory in nature, as it imposes a public duty on the authorities to complete the proceedings within a certain time but does not provide for any invalidating consequences in case of non-compliance. The Court also held that the suspension of the dealer in connection with such proceedings must come to an end after a period of three months if within that period the proceedings are not completed.
Issues: 1. Whether the time limit of three months mentioned in Clause 21 of the West Bengal Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 for completion of departmental proceedings is mandatory or directory? 2. Whether the suspension of the dealer in connection with such proceedings should continue beyond the period of three months if the proceedings are not completed within that period?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The intention of a statute is to be gathered from various factors, including the mischief which it seeks to address, the consequences of non-compliance, and the public interest involved. 2. A provision imposing a public duty on certain public officials to commence or conclude a proceeding within a particular time is invariably held to be directory. 3. Where a statute provides for consequences for non-compliance with a time limit, in such cases it has been held that the time fixed is mandatory in character. 4. When a public duty is imposed and the statute requires that it shall be performed in a certain manner and within a certain time, those provisions may be regarded as directory. 5. The suspension of the dealer in connection with such proceedings must come to an end after a period of three months if within that period the proceedings are not completed.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed to the extent that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Writ Court dated 2nd August, 2005 was set aside, except for the quashing of the suspension order against the writ petitioner. The departmental proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner was directed to continue and be completed as early as possible but definitely by 15th July, 2006.
( 1 ) BOTH the appeal and the application, with the consent of the parties, have been heard in full and both of them are disposed of by the following judgment.
( 2 ) THIS is an appeal filed by Md. Yeasin, Sk. Abdul Hanif and Sri Uttam kumar Konar from therein a judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Writ Court.
( 3 ) AS these appellants were not impleaded to the writ petition in which the judgment under appeal was rendered, the locus standi of these appellants was challenged by the writ petitioner on various grounds which will appear from the facts of the case.
( 4 ) THE relevant facts are that these appellants filed a complaint to the Sub-Divisional officer, Burdwan, North Sub-Division, District Burdwan alleging that the writ petitioner/respondent, Sk. Mansur Haque was running his business of M. R. Dealer of Jamar Village in Village and P. O. Jamar, P. S. Burdwan Sadar in such a way that essential commodities were not being properly distributed to the common public. It was also alleged that food materials in connection with various subsidized projects were not being properly distributed. No receipts were given in connection with the transaction in the ration shop of the writ petitioner. Persons holding B. P. L. cards were deprived and the stock of such essential commodities were not properly maintained. On the basis of such complaint, enquiries were initiated against Sk. Mansur Haque and an order of suspension dated 19th January, 2005 was passed against him by the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supply, Burdwan Sadar. The said order of suspension was challenged by Sk. Mansur Haque, by filing a writ petition [w. P. No. 1389 (W) of 2005] before this Court. A learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 28th January, 2005, admitted the same but did not grant any interim order. Against such refusal of interim order an appeal was filed before the division Bench and the Division Bench also disposed of the said appeal without interfering with the order of suspension. In the meantime, the departmental proceeding which was initiated against Sk. Mansur Haque was not completed within the time specified in Paragraph 21 of West Bengal Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the said order ). As such Sk. Mansur Haque filed the writ petition being W. P. No. 12856 (W) of 2005 and out of which the present appeal arises. The learned Judge quashed the suspension order dated 19th January, 2005 and also the charges against the said respondent/ writ petitioner.
( 5 ) ON behalf of the appellants it was urged that as a result of the order which was passed in the second writ petition of Sk. Mansur Haque, the proceedings which were initiated against him on the basis of their complaint were quashed. It has been contended that the appellants have the right to see that the proceedings initiated on the basis of their complaint reach a logical end and this has been thwarted as the proceedings have been quashed in the midstream. Therefore the appellants have a legitimate grievance and they have the locus to file the appeal. It was also submitted that the appellants filed a public Interest Litigation, inter alia, raising questions of public interest which are involved in the complaint lodged by them and also the public interest which is involved in the proper completion of the proceedings initiated against Sk. Mansur Haque. But the said public interest litigation being W. P. No. 15860 (W) of 2005 was allowed to be withdrawn by the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice by an order dated 29th August, 2006 with the liberty to the present appellants take such steps as are available under the law.
( 6 ) IN this perspective it is submitted that filing of the present appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2nd August, 2005 is the remedy available to the present appellants under the law and that is
AI
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
