Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 360
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Dipankar Datta, J.
Pankaj Panwar
Vs.
Lalit Kala Akademi & other
WP No. 5360 (W) of 2014
Decided On : 7.7.2014
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arunabha Ghosh, Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Mr. P. Roy, Mr. Mainak Ganguly, Mr. Pushpal Chakraborty.
For the Respondents: Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Mr. S. Tiwary, Mr. Kaushik Chanda.
Headnote:
MUKUL PANWAR V. LALIT KALA AKADEMI - PUNISHMENT - WITHDRAWAL OF NATIONAL AWARD - PUBLICATION IN NATIONAL PRINT MEDIA - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION - WRIT JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - CAUSE OF ACTION - WRIT PETITION MAINTAINABLE - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OVERRULED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a professor at the Department of Sculpture, Kala Bhavan, Viswabharati University, Santiniketan, West Bengal, was awarded a national award by the Lalit Kala Akademi, the first respondent. Upon an order passed by the Chairman of the Akademi, a public notice was published in various English newspapers, including the Hindustan Times, notifying that the petitioner had been censured and his national award and plaque withdrawn due to his alleged involvement in promoting relatives in Akademi activities. The petitioner challenged the public notice in a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court, claiming that he was not given an opportunity to participate in any proceedings and that his reputation had been damaged as a result of the publication.
Finding of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court overruled the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the writ petition was not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that the publication of the public notice in West Bengal, where the petitioner resides and works, constituted an integral and essential part of the cause of action, as it was the only event that made the public aware of the penalty imposed on the petitioner and affected his reputation and respect.
Issues: 1. Whether the Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the public notice issued by the Lalit Kala Akademi? 2. Whether the publication of the public notice in West Bengal constituted a part of the cause of action for the writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the publication of the public notice in West Bengal, where the petitioner resides and works, constituted an integral and essential part of the cause of action, as it was the only event that made the public aware of the penalty imposed on the petitioner and affected his reputation and respect. 2. The court relied on the decisions in Everest Coal Co. v. Coal Controller and Umasankar v. Union of India, which held that an order or notice becomes effective when it is communicated or served, and that the service of such order or notice would form part of the cause of action for filing a writ petition by the person aggrieved thereby.
Final Decision: The preliminary objection raised by the respondents was overruled, and the writ petition was allowed to proceed on merits.
Dipankar Datta, J.
1. A public notice was published by the Lalit Kala Akademi, the first respondent (hereafter the Akademi) in the Hindustan Times, an English daily having wide circulation in West Bengal, in its issue dated January 11, 2014. Upon an order passed in this behalf by the Chairman of the Akademi, the third respondent, it was sought to be notified by such notice that “Disciplinary Committee has been set up by the Akademi in compliance with Government/High Court orders to inquire into complaints against General Council Members who have violated Code of Conduct rules by promoting themselves/relatives in Akademi activities giving priority to personal needs over Akademi activities” and that “all concerned are hereby informed that the Competent Authority of Lalit Kala Akademi vide his order dated 07.01.2014 issued under clause 17(11) of the Akademi Constitution has passed the following orders in respect of the General Council Members mentioned below.”
The notice contained names of number of persons who had either been censured or otherwise penalised. In respect of Sri Mukul Panwar, one of several persons who were proceeded against, the following punishment had been awarded:
“Censure for all times. Recovery of loss to the Akademi due to his unauthorised visit to various countries. Withdrawal of National Award to his brother Pankaj Panwar including plaque and recovery of Award money. Publication in National Print media for information to public at large.”
2. The challenge in this writ petition dated February 13, 2014 presented by Sri Pankaj Panwar is to that part of the public notice whereby he has been visited with penalty, viz. withdrawal of national award including plaque and recovery of award money and information thereof to the public, without being called upon to participate in any proceedings that might have been drawn up.
3. Preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition has been raised by Mr. Krishna, learned counsel for the Akademi and its several officers who have been impleaded as respondents. According to him, the decision which has resulted in the petitioner feeling aggrieved was taken in New Delhi and since no part of the cause of action for presenting this writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court, it ought not to be entertained and merits dismissal.
4. I may place on record that no objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Akademi is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution was raised by Mr. Krishna. In fact, he submitted that a writ petition questioning the action of the Akademi would be maintainable at the instance of the petitioner in the Delhi High Court.
5. Upon hearing the parties on the preliminary objection, I had proposed to the parties to go ahead with their arguments on the merits of the petitioner’s claim observing that the preliminary objection would be dealt with while passing the final order on the writ petition. Mr. Krishna did not agree, and requested that the preliminary objection be decided first. The indication was clear and hence judgment on the preliminary objection was reserved. I would now proceed to dispose of the preliminary objection.
6. The petitioner is presently Professor of the Department of Sculpture, Kala Bhavan, Viswabharati University, Santiniketan, District Birbhum, West Bengal. His attainments in the field of art and sculpture have been given in details in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. It is claimed by him that although he was a member of the “Advisory Committee and Jury Member for National Exhibition of Art in respect of” the Akademi, he was “never a Member of the General Council, Executive Board, Finance Committee and Standing Committee” of the Akademi.
7. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the procedure for grant of national awards by the Akademi has been delineated while the following paragraph is the narration of his work of art being an ex
