Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, JJ.
Secretary, Bairgachi High School - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Others - Respondents
MAT. No. 1332 of 2019 with CAN. Nos. 10554 & 12158 of 2019
Decided On : 21-02-2020
For the Appellant :Indranil Roy, Sunit Kumar Roy, Advocates
For the Respondents:Kamalesh Bhattacharjee, Bidhan Biswas, Advocates
The court's discretion to pronounce judgment on admissions and the duty of the court to give reasons for passing a judgment even in a case where the court is satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved because of deemed admission by the respondents to the writ petition.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Deemed Admission - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 8 Rule 5, Order 8 Rule 10, Order 12 Rule 6 - The court's discretion to pronounce judgment on admissions - The court's discretion not to pronounce judgment against the defendant on deemed admission - The court's power to pass a judgment on account of deemed admission against a party who has not filed the statement of defence - The application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court's jurisdiction to decide a case on merit after being satisfied with its maintainability - The court's duty to confine itself to the action of illegality, decide where the decision-making authority exceeded its powers, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached the decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached, or abused its powers - The court's duty to give reasons for passing a judgment even in a case where the court is satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved because of deemed admission by the respondents to the writ petition
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner joined Bairgachi High School as Headmaster based on a recommendation but faced challenges in obtaining approval. The writ petition was allowed on the principle of admission, leading to the instant appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment on admission could not be automatically issued by a Writ Court exercising the powers of judicial review against a decision of an administrative authority. The court also held that the learned Single Judge erred in law by issuing a Mandamus applying the principle of deemed admission in the facts of the instant case.
Issues: The issues included the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the maintainability of the instant writ petition, and the duty of the court to confine itself to the action of illegality, decide where the decision-making authority exceeded its powers, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached the decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached, or abused its powers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's discretion to pronounce judgment on admissions, the court's discretion not to pronounce judgment against the defendant on deemed admission, the court's power to pass a judgment on account of deemed admission against a party who has not filed the statement of defence, the court's jurisdiction to decide a case on merit after being satisfied with its maintainability, and the court's duty to give reasons for passing a judgment even in a case where the court is satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved because of deemed admission by the respondents to the writ petition.
Final Decision: The judgment and order dated August 8, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside and the writ petition was remanded to the learned Single Judge having determination over this matter to decide the same afresh. The instant appeal being MAT No. 1332 of 2019 is allowed without however any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
1. At the time of hearing of the application for stay it appeared to us that the instant appeal can be disposed of only on a point of law and as such we invited the learned Advocates for the respective parties to address us on the merits of the appeal by treating the appeal as on the day's list with the consent of the parties.
2. The short question which falls for determination in the instant appeal is whether on deemed admission a mandamus can automatically be issued by a Writ Court exercising the powers of judicial review against a decision of an administrative authority.
3. In every action, the party against whom an action is brought has a right of defence. Such right of defence is recognised by the statutes. They also regulate the mode and time within which the statement of defence is to be presented. The time limit for filing of the statement of defence have also been fixed by the statutes. The courts may also upon being satisfied with the sufficiency of the cause shown by a party permit a party to present the statement of defence after expiry of the time limit by way of extension of time fixed by the statute. A party has a right to defend himself in an action, but the exercise of such right depends upon the choice of such party. A party to a litigation may choose either to file a statement of defence or not. A court cannot compel a party to file his statement of defence. In case a party against whom an action is brought does not appear or even after appearance chooses not to file a statement of defence, the Court is not denuded of its power to decide the fate of the proceeding ex parte on the basis of materials available on record.
4. The Secretary and Headmaster of Bairgachi High School being respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the writ petition being WP No. 37406 (W) of 2013 have preferred the instant appeal challenging the order dated August 8, 2019 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this court whereby it was directed that a judgment be entered in favour of the writ petitioner on admission in terms of prayer (a), (b) and (c) of the writ petition. The order impugned in the writ petition rejecting the prayer for approval of the writ petitioner's service was also quashed on admission. Direction was also passed to issue release order in favour of the writ petitioner and the respondent authorities were directed to accord approval to the appointment of the writ petitioner as Headmaster of Bairgachi High School. The salary and the other allowances of the writ petitioner was also directed to be paid within the time limit as stipulated in the said order.
5. The facts as stated in the writ petition which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the instant appeal is summarised hereunder as follows.
6. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the concerned School Service Commission, the writ petitioner/respondent no. 7 joined Bairgachi High School as Headmaster. Since the concerned District Inspector of Schools did not take any steps for according approval of appointment of the writ petitioner as Headmaster of the said school, he filed a writ petition being WP No. 16708 (W) of 2010 before this court. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated August 13, 2010 directing the concerned District Inspector to act in terms of the said order. The District Inspector of Schools rejected his prayer to accord approval as Headmaster of the said school which was communicated to him vide a letter being Memo No. 1329/1(4) SE/G dated September 27, 2010 being Annexure P7 to the writ petition. The secretary of the said school by a letter dated October 12, 2010 being Annexure P11 to the writ petition, informed the writ petitioner that the letter of his appointment as headmaster of the said school has been withdrawn in view of the order passed by the concerned District Inspector. He challenged the order dated September 27, 2010 passed by the concerned District Inspector by filing a writ petition being WP No. 255
