Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 9 To October 15, 2023

NOMINAL INDEXState of WB v Sudipta Ghosh 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 312Shantibala Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 313Srimanta Malik & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 314Nanda Dulal Bag Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 315Kanchi @ Sanjit Makhal and Another Vs. The State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 316Tijendranath Mahato Vs. The West Bengal State Election Commission & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 317Suvendu Adhikari v Rajiva Sinha State Election Commissioner & connected applications 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 318Review Of Judgement Cannot Be “Cloaked Appeal,” Must Be Within Contours Of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC : Calcutta High CourtCase: State of WB v Sudipta GhoshCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 312The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed a review petition while outlining the powers of review available to the High Court as a Court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution, and the circumscription of the same in view of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, which outlines the grounds for review of a judgement.A single-bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf held:An appeal cannot cloak as review…Courts while exercising their review jurisdiction act as third umpires and are only empowered to look into an error apparent on the face of record. If the courts are required to embark upon a journey in search for the error on which review has been sought, then that error cannot be termed as an error apparent on face of record. Review jurisdiction cannot be treated as second opportunity by the parties aggrieved by a judgement or order to argue afresh.Calcutta High Court Provides Relief To Family Of Man Killed In Tiger Attack, Says Compensation Can't Be Denied Even If He Transgressed LawCase: Shantibala Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal and othersCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 313The Calcutta High Court has directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Head of Forest Force), Government of West Bengal, to disburse a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner, whose husband died after being attacked by a tiger in the Sundarbans area.In observing that compensation could not be denied even if the petitioner’s husband had transgressed some laws in entering the forest ‘core’ area to earn his livelihood, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:Even if, for argument’s sake, the petitioner’s husband is construed to have transgressed the law for earning his livelihood and stepped into the core area (which, however, is not established by any document whatsoever), it cannot be the law that the family of the poor victim in such cases will be deprived of compensation merely for transgression of law as perceived by the authorities. The cause of death of her husband being a wild animal attack in the Sundarban area, the respondent authorities are duty bound to pay compensation for such demise to the petitioner, who is the wife of the said deceased.Majority Community Cannot Co-Opt Minority Seat When Minority Candidate Available: Calcutta High Court Directs Appointment Of ST Woman As ‘Pradhan’Case: Srimanta Malik & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 314The Calcutta High Court has dismissed challenges against the selection of an elected candidate belonging to the Scheduled tribe category as the Pradhan of a gram panchayat, against a seat reserved for ST candidates.Since the incumbent was the only candidate who was eligible for the post, which had been reserved for members of the ST community, she was to be elected as Pradhan unopposed.The petitioners had challenged her appointment on the grounds that she belonged to a minority party, and did not enjoy the confidence of the people of the village, which may lead to the village “suffering.” Petitioners wished to ‘co-opt’ the seat belonging to the ST community and utilise it to place a candidate of their choice.In dismissing the plea, a single-bench of Justice Amrita Sinha held:I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention of the petitioners. The election of the Pradhan is yet to be held and the candidate is yet to prove her credence. Prior to giving her an opportunity to serve the people, she ought not to be taken as an incompetent person to assume the office of Pradhan. An opportunity ought to be given to the candidate to prove her credibility. The provision to co-opt clearly mentions that in case of non-availability of persons of reserved category, co-option is permissible. This is not a case of non-availability of reserved category person.Father Locking Main Gate To Evict Son Without Due Process Of Law Is Mischievous: Calcutta High CourtCase: Nanda Dulal Bag Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 315The Calcutta High Court has come to the aid of a man who was ousted by his father from their house by installing a padlock on the main gate.It was argued by the petitioner-father, that the respondent-son had spent 15 years away from ...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 9 To October 15, 2023

Srinjoy Das

Tags