Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 89
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Biswanath Somadder, Moushumi Bhattacharya, JJ.
The Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, ATM at Kasba & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Ranajit Chatterjee @ Ronojit Chatterjee & Ors. - Respondent
MAT 144 of 2018 With CAN 972 of 2018 With CAN 973 of 2018
Decided On : 06-02-2018
For the Appellants : Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. AG, Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata
For the Rrespondent: Mr. Shiba Prasad Mukherjee, Mr. Supriyo Singh
For the KMDA : Mr. Satyajit Talukdar
Compliance with court directions and the necessity for personal appearance before the learned Single Judge.
Headnote:
Single Judge - Writ Petition - WP 10902 (W) of 2017 - KMDA - Chief Executive Officer - Contempt of Court - Commissioner of Police - Joint Commissioner - Armed Police - Special Officer - Ameens - Block Land and Land Reforms Officer - Inspection - Compliance - Advocate General - Appeal - Stay
Fact of the Case:
The appeal arises from an order passed in a writ petition where the Advocate-on-Record of the writ petitioner misinterpreted the order of the Single Judge. The appeal was allowed, and the application for leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.
Finding of the Court:
The work of inspection has been complied with in terms of the directions given by the learned Single Judge. The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly.
Issues: Misinterpretation of the order by the Advocate-on-Record, compliance with the directions of the Single Judge, and the necessity for the appellants to appear in person before the learned Single Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the work of inspection had been complied with, and there was no necessity for the appellants to appear in person before the learned Single Judge.
Final Decision: The appeal and the application for stay were disposed of accordingly, and the matter was listed for the purpose of ascertaining payment of costs in terms of the order.
BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.
Before we consider the appeal which arises out of the order dated 29th January, 2018, passed in WP 10902 (W) of 2017 (Ranajit Chatterjee @ Ronojit Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal) on its merit, we notice from the records of the First Court that on 17th November, 2017, the learned Single Judge had granted leave to the Advocate-on-Record of the writ petitioner to add KMDA through its Chief Executive Officer at the appropriate address as party respondent no. 3A in the writ proceeding. The original records, however, reveal that the Advocate-on-Record, instead of complying with the directions of the learned Single Judge, has impleaded one Dr. Saumitra Mohan, IAS, by name and upon describing him to be the Chief Executive Officer, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KIT Wing).
2. We do not appreciate the manner in which the Advocate-on-Record of the writ petitioner (being the respondent no. 1 herein) has sought to interpret the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 17th November, 2017. As such, we deem it fit to impose exemplary costs upon the Advocate-on-Record of the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner so that in future he does not misinterpret an order of the writ Court in such a manner. He shall pay costs assessed at 1000 G.Ms to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, to be kept earmarked for its utilisation by the Mediation and Conciliation Committee of the High Court within 48 hours from date.
3. Advocate-on-record of the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner shall correct the cause title of the writ petition here and now in the manner as allowed in the order dated 17th November, 2017.
In re: CAN 972 of 2018
4. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application as well as the impugned order dated 29th January, 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 10902 (W) of 2017 (Ranajit Chatterjee @ Ronojit Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal), we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and having regard to the directions given by the learned Single Judge as contained in the impugned order, the applicants are required to be granted leave to prefer an appeal against the order.
5. The application for leave to appeal is allowed accordingly.
In re: MAT 144 of 2018 with CAN 973 of 2018
6. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.
7. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 29th January, 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 10902 (W) of 2017 (Ranajit Chatterjee @ Ronojit Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal).
8. It has been preferred by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, ATM at Kasba and two Ameens attached to the office of the said Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. The appellants were not the respondents before the writ Court.
9. The reason why this appeal has been preferred appears from a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order dated 29th January, 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge. From the said order, it appears that a sealed report was filed before the learned Single Judge on that day itself by the Special Officer, Sumon Sankar Chatterjee. Upon perusing the same, the learned Single Judge has made certain observations and consequentially issued the following directions:-
“The learned Special Officer shall go again to the venue with police help and the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, is commanded to depute an officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner and armed police, who will escort the Special Officer and the Ameens along with all equipments to the concerned site and cause the Ameens, under pain of proceedings for contempt to complete the measurement and comply with my earlier orders within 72 hours from the receipt of the copy of this order. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Deputy Sheriff of this Court. For further proceedings and nec
