IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present :- Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha WPA 4927 of 2023 NCLT Advocates Bar Association, Kolkata Bench & Ors.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

For the writ petitioners :- Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Adv.

Mrs. Manju Bhuteria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Patita Paban Bishwal, Adv.

Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Adv.

Ms. Namrrataa Basu, Adv. Mr. Kanishk Kejriwal, Adv. Ms. Rashhmi Singhee, Adv. Ms. Janvi Luhariwala, Adv.

Ms. Arundhuti Burman, Adv.

Ms. Aishwarya Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. Dripto Majumdar, Adv.

For Union of India :- Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Adv.

Mr. Avinash Kankani, Adv.

Hearing concluded on :- 07.03.2025 Judgment on :- 25.03.2025 Amrita Sinha, J.:-

1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the act of the respondent authority in taking steps to shift the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’ for short), Kolkata bench from its present location at 5, Esplanade Row West, B.B.D. Bag, Kolkata 700001 to Corporate Bhawan at New Town, Akandakeshari, Kolkata 700135.

2. The petitioner no. 1, Bar Association of the learned advocates practicing in NCLT, claims to have its registered office at 6, Old Post Office Street, ground floor, room no. 36, Kolkata 700001; the petitioner no. 2 claims to be a litigant whose matters are pending adjudication before the Tribunal and the petitioner no. 3 claims to be a clerk of an advocate who practices in NCLT.

3. It has been submitted that the building where NCLT is currently located is in the vicinity of the Hon’ble High Court and it has enough space to house the benches that are presently functioning. The present location is easily accessible by all stakeholders including the learned advocates, their staff and the litigants. The place where NCLT is sought to be shifted is in an extremely remote area approximately twenty-eight kilometres away from the High Court. The place is not properly accessible. There is lack of supportive infrastructure in and around the new site. None of the stakeholders will be able to avail the facility for which the Tribunal has been set up.

4. It has been submitted that NCLT has been sought to be made an extended limb of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The independence of the judiciary will be highly impaired if the department is permitted to set up the Tribunal. NCLT ought to have been set up by the Ministry of Law and Justice and not by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. There is high chance of the judiciary being influenced if the corporate affairs department is permitted to set up the infrastructural facility of NCLT.

5. The importance of Article 50 of the Constitution of India relating to separation of judiciary from the executive has been heavily relied upon. It has been submitted that the State is bound to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State. If a particular department is permitted to lend infrastructural support to the judiciary, there is high possibility that the judiciary may not be in a position to function independently.

6. It has been submitted that neither public opinion nor the opinion of the stakeholders was sought for prior to taking a decision to shift NCLT. No advertisement or notification was published disclosing the shift of the venue of NCLT.

7. It has been argued that there is enough space in the building from where NCLT is currently functioning and there is absolutely no necessity to shift the Tribunal from its present location. Apart from NCLT there are other departments in the said building and if the said departments are shifted to the Corporate Bhawan, then the additional space that will be available can be utilized for functioning of NCLT.

8. Prayer has been made to issue writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to shift NCLT from its present location and to permit the Tribunal to function from its present address.

9. In support of the submission that the building from where NCLT is currently functioning is not a heritage building and necessary repair