Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 745
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, JJ.
Dr. Kunal Saha
Versus
State of West Bengal & Another
W.P.No. 15515 (W) of 2014 (Appellate Side)
Decided on: 22-12-2014
For the Petitioner:Indranil Roy, Lalratan Mondal, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Pratap Chatterjee, Ranjan Bachawat, Debojyoti Datta, Makhan Ray, Samrat Sen, Mr. Moloy Roy, Advocates.
A person who has not suffered any personal or legal injury and does not have a legally enforceable right that has been interfered with does not have locus standi to challenge a government action.
Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - Locus Standi - Grant of 'Bangabibhushan' Award - Petitioner Challenged Award to Respondent - Court Held Petitioner Lacked Locus Standi - No Legally Enforceable Right of Petitioner Interfered
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the grant of the 'Bangabibhushan' award to the respondent, a doctor who had been criticized by the Supreme Court for medical negligence. The petitioner argued that the award violated Article 144 of the Indian Constitution, which requires all civil and judicial bodies to comply with Supreme Court orders, and that it was an attempt to glorify the respondent's misconduct. The respondent argued that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the award, as he had not suffered any personal or legal injury.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the grant of the award. The court found that the petitioner had not alleged that the award was discriminatory or that it had unlawfully deprived or prejudiced any other person. The court also found that the petitioner had not pleaded or argued any claim of a competing interest for the award. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner had no legally enforceable right that had been interfered with and that he was not a person aggrieved within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the grant of the 'Bangabibhushan' award to the respondent? 2. Whether the grant of the award violated Article 144 of the Indian Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the grant of the award because: 1. The petitioner had not alleged that the award was discriminatory or that it had unlawfully deprived or prejudiced any other person. 2. The petitioner had not pleaded or argued any claim of a competing interest for the award. 3. The petitioner had not suffered any personal or legal injury.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner lacked locus standi.
Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.
In this writ application the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:
“b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue declaring that Respondent no.1 has no authority to bestow the “Bangabibhushan” award to Respondent no.2 at the ceremony on 20th May, 2014 at Science City, Kolkata because it undermines the sanctity and authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in violation of Article 144 of Indian Constitution.
c) A writ in the nature of prohibition do issue restraining the Respondent no.1 and/or his/her men, agents, associates to organize/participate/arrange to present the “Bangabibhushan” award to Respondent no.2 at the ceremony to be held on 20th May, 2014 at Science City, Kolkata.
d) A writ in the nature of certiorari do issue commanding the respondents to transmit to this Hon’ble Court all records restraining to the instant case so that conscionable justice may be done.”
By an order dated 20th May, 2014 this Court directed the parties to exchange their affidavits and observed that the grant of the ‘Bangabibhushan’ award (hereinafter referred to as the said award) shall be subject to the result of the writ application.
A brief review of the relevant facts would suffice. The petitioner is a doctor settled in USA and he lost his wife on 25th April, 1998, during a social visit to Calcutta due to medical negligence of the respondent no.2 herein and some other doctors including the authorities of the AMRI Hospital. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and also the appropriate criminal forum.
The said disputes ultimately went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the criminal appeals were dismissed and as regards the civil appeal, the matter was remitted to the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for determining the compensation by a common judgment dated 7th August, 2009 in the matter of Malay Kumar Ganguly –vs- Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others with Kunal Saha (Dr.) –vs- Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 221. Subsequent thereto, the learned Commission delivered a judgment on 21st October, 2011 and the matter again went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and was ultimately disposed of by a judgment dated 24th October, 2013 delivered in the case of Balram Prasad –vs- Kunal Saha and others with Civil Appeal Nos. 692, 2866, 731, 858 of 2012, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 384. Subsequent thereto, from a newspaper report dated 16th May, 2014, the petitioner came to learn for the first time that the respondent no.2 has been selected to receive the prestigious ‘Bangabibhushan’ award to be given in a public ceremony scheduled on 20th May, 2014. Shocked by such attempt of the respondent no.1 to glorify the respondent no.2 in sharp contrast to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments delivered in the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly (Supra) and Balram Prasad (Supra), the petitioner affirmed the writ application before this Court on 20th May, 2014.
Mr. Indranil Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 144 of the judgment delivered in the case of Balram Prasad (Supra), which runs as follows :
“Therefore, the negligence of Dr Sukumar Mukherjee in treating the claimant’s wife had been already established by this Court in Malay Kumar Ganguly case. Since he is a senior doctor who was in charge of the treatment of the deceased, we are inclined to mention here that Dr Mukherjee has shown utmost disrespect to his profession by being so casual in his approach in treating his patient. Moreover, on being charged with the liability, he attempted to shift the blame on other doctors. We, therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances, direct him to pay a compensation of Rs 10 lakhs to the claimant in lieu of his negligence and we sincerely hope that he upholds his integrity as a doct
