- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Calcutta High Court
- /
- Attack On ED In West Bengal | 'Not...
Attack On ED In West Bengal | 'Not Done Any Research': High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking NIA Or CBI Probe Based Solely On Newspaper Reports
Srinjoy Das
11 Jan 2024 8:12 AM GMT
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday questioned the bonafide research of a petitioner who had filed a PIL challenging the attacks on members of the Enforcement Directorate who had gone to conduct raids in West Bengal's Sandeshkhali and Bongaon. A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Supratime Bhattacharya dismissed the plea and held:"This plea seeks an investigation by the...
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday questioned the bonafide research of a petitioner who had filed a PIL challenging the attacks on members of the Enforcement Directorate who had gone to conduct raids in West Bengal's Sandeshkhali and Bongaon.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Supratime Bhattacharya dismissed the plea and held:
"This plea seeks an investigation by the NIA or CBI into an incident at Sandeshkhali. The annexures are nothing but newspaper reports. The petitioner who is a practising advocate, appears to have not done any research. Based upon newspaper reports, without any research by the petitioner, a writ petition cannot be entertained at this juncture. The matter concerns an attack upon ED officials, and the petitioner is not advised as to what the said central agency has to do, as they have all the expertise to handle this situation. Therefore we are not inclined to entertain the matter as a PIL. Dismissed."
Petitoner's counsel submitted that such attacks on the ED would become a trendsetter and have national ramifications.
It was argued that the ED was attacked when they were on an official raid to investigate 18 places across WB, connected to the Ration scam, allegedly involving ₹660 crore.
It was submitted that this was an act of waging war against a government agency. Which was a scheduled offence under the NIA Act.
Upon being told by the advocate for the petitioner that the matter was extremely urgent and would have wider ramifications, the Chief Justice said:
Earlier PILs would come due to failure of state machinery, asking for a central agency. Here this agency is a central agency, highly technical, they can take care of themselves. Who are you? You have collected newspaper cuttings, without doing any research. Someone cannot fire off your shoulders. Therefore unless the petitioner establishes that he has done research, more than paper cuttings, it is very difficult. You don't plead the case of the ED or the State police. They are all highly technical people, they can handle themselves. If they want protection or throw up their hands and come to court, then we will look into it. They know what to do. ASG, DSG are all there. Why does the HC have to intervene? They have all the power to do whatever they want. Why are you trying to canvass their case? Let them come and say they are powerless and they want to support you.
Accordingly, in not finding any proper research in the PIL, the Court dismissed the same.
The Chief Justice also pointed to a resolution of the Bar, which had been passed today requesting no work on the occasion of the bereavement of an advocate. It was said that, if advocates chose to appear despite the resolution, the Court would grant a full hearing to them, but if later on the Court required the appearance of advocates during the pendency of any other resolution, then they would be dutybound to appear before the court as well.
"You cannot have it both ways," Chief Justice Sivagnanam said.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 13
Case: NILADRI SAHA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Case No: WPA(P) 10/2024
