- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest:...
Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations 221 To 261]
Aaratrika Bhaumik
4 July 2022 12:00 PM GMT
![Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations 221 To 261]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/02/01/750x450_408693-calcutta-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations 221 To 261]")
Nominal Index Pranesh Kumar Kar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 221Abhishek Banerjee & Anr v. The Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 222Rajina Begam v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 223In Re: Satyadeo Prasad Shaw 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 224State of West Bengal v. Purnima Kandu 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 225Goutam Saren v. Union of India &...
Nominal Index
Pranesh Kumar Kar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 221
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr v. The Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 222
Rajina Begam v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 223
In Re: Satyadeo Prasad Shaw 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 224
State of West Bengal v. Purnima Kandu 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 225
Goutam Saren v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 226
Anup Gupta v. State of West Bengal and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 227
Protima Dutta v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 228
Soumen Nandy v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 229
Mousumi Narayan (Nee Pal) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 230
Usthi United Primary Teachers Welfare Association & Anr v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 231
Central Bureau of Investigation (Special Case No.04/99) v. Ms. S.R.Ramamani & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 232
Suvendu Adhikari v. Abhishek Banerjee 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 233
Nipika Agarwal Proprietress of S.N. Trading Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 234
Shri Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 235
Niladri Saha v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 236
Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 237
M/S. Dunlop India Limited and Ors v. Mathai and Sons 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 238
Abhisek Panda & Ors v. West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 239
Electrosteel Castings Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 240
Niladri Saha v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 241
Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 242
Mahendra Kumar Jain v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 243
Suresh Babu @ Arakkal Arjunan Suresh Babu v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 244
Pranati Aguan v. State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 245
Suvendu Adhikari and Ors v. Hon'ble Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 246
Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. versus Assistant Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 247
In the matter of : Ved Prakash Arya v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 248
Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 249
Sk. Manowar Ali & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 250
Salem Khan v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 251
Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 252
Maleka Khatun v. The State of West Bengal and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 253
Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority v. Bengal Unitech Siliguri Projects Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 254
In the matter of : Kalu Sk. @ Kuran v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 255
Md. Safique Mallick v. The State of West Bengal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 256
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sanjib Halder 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 257
Sri Daksh Singhal & Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 258
Ashok Jana v. The State of West Bengal & ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 259
Dr. Kunal Saha v. West Bengal Medical Council (WBMC) and anotherm2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 260
Abdul Khalek Laskar & Anr v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 261
Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Pranesh Kumar Kar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 221
The Calcutta High Court has recently directed the concerned Treasury Officer to pay interest for delayed payment of gratuity and arrear pension amount to an Assistant Teacher, after opining that it is a valuable right of a retired employee. Justice Amrita Sinha observed, "An employee has a statutory right to receive gratuity and pension upon retirement. If payment of such gratuity and pension is delayed the retired employee is surely entitled to get some interest for such delayed payment." The Court also remarked that pension and gratuity are welfare provisions aimed at maintaining the life of a retired employee and his/her dependents and that it is compensatory in nature. Accordingly, the Court directed the concerned Treasury Officer to pay interest to the writ petitioner at the rate of 5% per annum on the gratuity and arrear pension calculated on and from the due date till the date of actual payment, provided the delay caused was not attributable to the petitioner.
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee & Anr v. The Union of India & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 222
The Calcutta High Court allowed Trinamool Congress's National General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee to go to Dubai for medical treatment. This comes even as the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is probing the two in a coal smuggling scam, opposed their travel. Allowing the TMC MLA and his wife to travel to Dubai for medical treatment, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed, "Considering the instant application purely on humanitarian ground, this Court permits the petitioner no.1 and his wife to visit Moorfields Eye Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates during the period between 2nd June, 2022 and 10th June, 2022." Directing the petitioners to submit details about their accommodation and the hospital where the medical treatment will be sought, the Court underscored, "The petitioners shall submit the copies of the air tickets and the address where they would stay in Dubai during the particular period to the Enforcement Directorate with the phone numbers of the Hospital and the place of accommodation of the petitioners so that the Enforcement Directorate can keep a track of the whereabouts of the petitioners."
Case Title: Rajina Begam v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 223
The Calcutta High Court has recently opined that the power of the Constitutional Court cannot be used as a coercive machinery and thus ordered the aggrieved person to seek relief from the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate regarding the alleged police inaction. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri was adjudicating upon a case wherein the petitioner had alleged that she had been manhandled and also her modesty had been outraged by the respondent and his associates in an altercation regarding construction over a disputed property. Opining further that the power of the Constitutional Court cannot be used as a coercive machinery, the Court underscored, "The power of the Constitutional Court cannot be used as a coercive machinery upon an individual. If the petitioner has any objection with regard to the course of investigation, she can take appropriate step in the Court of the Jurisdictional Magistrate."
Case Title: In Re: Satyadeo Prasad Shaw
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 224
The Calcutta High Court opined that a litigant should not be penalised for the misconduct of his advocate and accordingly allowed an application seeking condonation of delay of about 9 years and 4 months in filing the revision petition. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before Justice Kaushik Chanda that the petitioner had not been informed by his advocate that his criminal appeal had been dismissed by the concerned Sessions Judge on December 13, 2012. Pursuant to the submissions, the Court underscored, "A litigant should not be penalised for the laches or misconduct on the part of his learned advocate. In the present case, though I am of the view that the petitioner should have been more diligent in pursuing his case before this Court, I am inclined to grant him an opportunity to contest his appeal on merit." Accordingly, the Court condoned the delay in preferring the instant revisional application subject to the condition that the petitioner will pay a cost of Rs.10,000 to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal within a period of 2 weeks.
5. Calcutta HC Upholds Single Judge Order For CBI Probe Into Congress Councillor Tapan Kandu's Murder
Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Purnima Kandu
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 225
The Calcutta High Court upheld the order of a Single Judge bench for a CBI probe into the death of former Congress councillor of Jhalda Municipality in Purulia, Tapan Kandu who was reportedly shot dead by miscreants on March 13. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj noted that the counsel appearing for the CBI has pointed out that the CBI has already taken over the investigation and substantial progress in the investigation has been done. Opining that no case of interference is made out, the Court observed, "In view of the circumstances noted above, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge and no case of interference is made out. We make it clear that any observation made by the learned Single Judge in the order under challenge or by this Court in this order are only tentative for the purpose of deciding the present issue and they will not prejudice the trial in any manner."
Case Title: Goutam Saren v. Union of India & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 226
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on the Central Administrative Tribunal for failing to dispose of a matter within a month despite its earlier order, by labelling it to be a 'sordid state of affairs'. A Bench comprising Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) and Justice Harish Tandon underscored, "It is the sordid state of affairs that despite all requests having been made to the officers manning the tribunal to dispose of the matter within a month from the date of the communication of this order, no substantial progress could be seen therefrom." Opining that the time limit set forth is mandatory, the Court further observed, "The time limit set forth hereinabove, is peremptory and mandatory. If necessary, the tribunal shall fix the date on day to day basis in order to adhere to the time fixed by this Court in the impugned order."
Case Title: Anup Gupta v. State of West Bengal and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 227
The Calcutta High Court while adjudicating upon a plea alleging illegal appointment of assistant teachers for Class 9 and Class 10 in State-run schools, directed West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to set aside the appointment of a mathematics teacher. In the instant case, one Siddique Gazi was working as a mathematics teacher at Soluadanga High School in Murshidabad since February 2021. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha took on record the report filed by Ashok Kumar Saha, Assistant Secretary, West Bengal Central School Service Commission wherein the Commission had admitted that the appointment of Gazi as Assistant Teacher in the subject of Mathematics in OBC for Class IX & X under the State Level Selection Test, 2016 has been a mistake. Directing the Board of Secondary Education to immediately cancel his appointment, the Court underscored, "In that view of the matter, appointment of Siddik Gazi as Assistant Teacher by the Board of Secondary Education shall stand quashed and set aside. The Board shall take immediate consequential steps. An illegal appointment cannot confer any right on an appointee." The Court stated that it will consider on June 8 whether the said appointment was obtained by fraud or other malpractice. It further directed that no arrears whatsoever in any form shall be paid to the illegal appointee in the meantime.
Case Title: Protima Dutta v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 228
The Calcutta High Court transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the probe relating to murder of Trinamool Congress leader Tapan Dutta. The CID West Bengal which was probing the case was directed to immediately handover the investigation to the CBI. Dutta, then vice-president of Trinamool Congress' Bally Jagacha block unit in Howrah, was shot dead on May 6, 2011. The block unit was spearheading a movement to stop the filling up of 750-acre wetland, when Datta was killed. Pursuant to the rival submissions, Justice Rajasekhar Mantha opined that the pressure on the State police to shield certain persons and their nefarious actions cannot be ruled out and accordingly observed, "This Court's mind is not free from doubt that the murder in question might have been the result of a rivalry and a conspiracy. The victim may have been obstructing huge monetary and/or political gain that some persons were after. Such persons are politically powerful and well connected. A fair and effective investigation may indeed open a can of worms, or expose any likely role of influential persons. The pressure on the State police and the investigation agencies to shield certain persons and their nefarious actions cannot therefore be ruled out. Change of the investigating and prosecuting agency in the instant case is also necessary to instil faith in the family of the victim and the public at large."
Case Title: Soumen Nandy v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 229
The Calcutta High Court ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case related to primary teacher recruitment and directed the central agency to submit their report in a closed envelope on June 15. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay was apprised by the petitioner that former state minister and IPS officer Upendra Nath Biswas had named one Chandan Mondal of Bagda, North 24 Parganas for allegedly giving jobs of primary school teachers in lieu of money. Incidentally, Upendra Nath Biswas is a former additional director of the CBI. It was further alleged that Mondal is hands-in-glove with Ministers of the Education Department of Government of West Bengal. Ordering for a CBI probe, the Court underscored, "Serious allegation by one responsible person, who was none other than the Ex-Additional Director of CBI and a Cabinet Minister of the State Government in the first five years of the Government, has come before this court which is serious corrupt practice. I hold this aspect is to be thoroughly investigated by the CBI and such investigation is required to be started forthwith. The Police of this State is otherwise very efficient but controlled by some persons in power and cannot act freely which is common knowledge and without showing any disrespect to the Police authority I hold that CBI is the appropriate authority to investigate the matter."
Case Title: Mousumi Narayan (Nee Pal) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 230
The Calcutta High Court transferred an investigation into a criminal case to the West Bengal CID after noting that the lawyer of the petitioner had been threatened by the concerned inspector of the local police station. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) of the West Bengal CID to appoint an Officer to investigate the case and accordingly observed, "Since the learned advocate for the petitioner was even threatened by the police inspector being the well wisher of the opposite parties, this Court is of the view that both Kasba Police Station Case No.254 of 2021 and Anandapur Police Station Case No.63 dated 5th April, 2022 ought to be investigated by a competent officer of C.I.D., West Bengal. Therefore, the Officers-in-charge of Kasba P.S. and Anandapur P.S. are directed to hand over the case diary of the above mentioned case to the Officer, CID for further investigation as appointed by the D.I.G., C.I.D." The Court thus ordered for a copy of this order to be sent to the D.I.G., C.I.D., Government of West Bengal at Bhawani Bhawan, Alipore.
Case Title: Usthi United Primary Teachers Welfare Association & Anr v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 231
The Calcutta High Court allowed a Primary Teachers' Welfare Association to conduct a peaceful protest rally on June 11 from Raja Subodh Mullick Square Park to Rani Rashmoni Avenue in Kolkata. Justice Shampa Sarkar however imposed a host of conditions and further underscored that the police authorities shall be at liberty to ensure that no breach of peace takes place and law and order is maintained. The Court further noted that the police authorities have not objected to such a rally and that the petitioner wishes to have a peaceful rally with limited number of loudspeakers and vehicles.
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation (Special Case No.04/99) v. Ms. S.R.Ramamani & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 232
The Calcutta High Court vide order dated June 8, 2022, has suggested that the CBI issue a fresh circular empowering the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) and the Public Prosecutor to give their opinion to the Director of Prosecution on filing appeals challenging court orders, to cut down on delay. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri had expressed displeasure at the agency for filing appeals after the expiry of the limitation period. The Court had noted that the CBI officers were failing to comply with the CBI manual which stipulates detailed provisions to avoid delay and ensure filing of appeals and revisions within the limitation period. Accordingly, the Court had opined that the issue could not be decided without hearing the CBI Director and thus sought his virtual appearance. On Wednesday, Justice Chaudhuri reiterated his proposal when CBI Director-General S K Jaiswal was present via virtual mode during the hearing.
Reiterating the proposal to sought the opinion of the ASG and the Public Prosecutor on filing appeals challenging court orders, the Court observed, "The experience of this Court shows that the circular dated 4th March, 2020 is maintained only in papers. It is not being followed and till date the appeals are filed by the CBI against order of acquittal after expiry of the period of limitation. Thereafter, this Court further reiterates its proposal to be considered by the CBI in its administrative side to come up with a fresh circular to the fact that against an order of acquittal the zonal shall obtain a comments of the Public Prosecutor and the learned Assistant Solicitor General send the said comments directly to the Director of Prosecution for his consideration. The Director of Prosecution shall consider the opinion of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of the respective High Courts within seven days from the date of receipt of the opinion and finally shall take decision as to whether an appeal should be file or not."
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. Abhishek Banerjee
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 233
The Calcutta High Court ordered the transfer of a defamation suit filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee against BJP MLA and Leader of Opposition in West Bengal Assembly Suvendu Adhikari from a Court in Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas to a City Civil Court in Calcutta. Adhikari had moved an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking transfer of the suit now pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas to the court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta. Justice Rabindranath Samanta observed, "Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience of the respective parties, I feel that it would be wise to withdraw Title Suit No.19 of 2021 from the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Diamond Harbour and transfer the suit to learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta." The concerned Chief Judge was also ordered to make all endeavour so that the suit is disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: Nipika Agarwal Proprietress of S.N. Trading Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 234
The Calcutta High Court bench has held that assessees should be given the opportunity to produce evidence which has an impact on tax liability. The division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Bibhas Ranjan De has observed that tax authorities must adjudicate upon the tax liability in accordance with the law. Similarly, if the assessee is unable to present certain evidence that affects the tax liability, the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to bring the evidence to the attention of the tax authorities. "We are of the view that another opportunity should be granted to the appellant/writ petitioner to place the document dated August 25, 2021 before the revisional authority. The appellant/writ petitioner is at liberty to approach the revisional authority within a fortnight from this date with regard to the order of assessment dated May 3, 2021. If so approached, the revisional authority is requested to reconsider its order passed on refund, taking into account the document dated August 25, 2021 in accordance with law," the court said.
Case Title: Shri Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 235
The Calcutta High Court refused to initiate a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged Metro Dairy scam, by opining that no case has been made out for interference as the State has not adopted any non-transparent or opaque sale of shares. The Court was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition moved by West Bengal Congress President Adhir Chowdhury alleging a lack of transparency in West Bengal government's sale of its 47 percent stake in Metro Dairy to private dairy organisation Keventer Agro Ltd in 2017. In the same year, one Singapore-based company had reportedly bought Metro Dairy's 15 per cent share at a much higher price. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed that the policy decision of the West Bengal government to sell its 47 per cent stake in Mother Dairy (respondent no. 5) to Keventer Agro Ltd in an auction for Rs 85 crore was neither illegal nor arbitrary. "Having regard to the above, we find that policy decision of the State to sell 47 % shares of respondent no. 5 MDL was neither illegal nor arbitrary and State had also not adopted non-transparent or opaque procedure for sale of shares, hence no case for interference in the present writ petition is made out which is accordingly, dismissed", the Court ruled.
Case Title: Niladri Saha v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 236
The Calcutta High Court sought the State government's response in a batch of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions seeking deployment of central paramilitary forces in West Bengal amid the ongoing protests against offensive remarks made against Prophet Mohammed by now suspended BJP leaders. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj underscored that the State authorities must ensure that no untoward incident takes place and further directed that the State should seek help from central forces in case they fail to control the situation. "In the meanwhile we express hope that the State authorities will take all possible steps to ensure that no untoward incident takes place and peace is maintained. In case, the State Police is unable to control the situation at any place then State authorities will take immediate steps to call the central forces", the Court observed. The Bench further directed the State government to consider looking into appropriate video footage to identify the miscreants responsible for the violence. The Advocate General was also instructed to consider the issue of grant of compensation to those who have suffered loss of property in the alleged incidents of violence and accordingly apprise the Court about the steps taken on the next date of hearing.
Case Title: Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 237
The Calcutta High Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe into recruitment of teachers in government-aided primary schools by the State's primary education board. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay directed the CBI to file an FIR to initiate an investigation into alleged illegal recruitment of teachers by the board based on the teachers' eligibility test in 2014. Furthermore, the primary education board secretary Ratna Chakraborti Bagchi and president Manik Bhattacharya were also ordered to appear before the CBI at its office later by 5pm on Monday. "In view of the illegality committed in respect of the second panel (termed as Additional Panel, by the Secretary of the Board), which is wholly illegal and giving illegal appointment to 269 candidates by a queer method unknown to law, I direct the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI', for short) to start investigation by registering a case immediately against the Board and start interrogating the President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, Dr. Manik Bhattacharya, and the Secretary of the said Board Dr. Ratna Chakraborty Bagchi, which shall start today itself. I direct the petitioners to add Dr. Manik Bhattacharya, the President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education and Dr. Ratna Chakraborty Bagchi, the Secretary of the said Board as party respondents and they are to go to the CBI office at Nizam Palace by 5:30 p.m. today to face interrogation", the Court ordered.
Case Title: M/S. Dunlop India Limited and Ors v. Mathai and Sons
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 238
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on an unsecured creditor seeking a stay of the e-auction process to liquidate plant and machinery of Dunlop India Ltd, opining that it is a desperate attempt to keep the claims of the creditors and workers uncertain and in a limbo for all times to come. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon an application moved by one Miller Traders Private Limited, an unsecured creditor of Dunlop India Ltd seeking a stay of an e-auction sale notice dated February 21, 2022. The Court imposed costs on the applicant to the tune of Rs 2 lakhs and further observed, "The irrefutable conclusion is that the applicant does not want closure or any constructive resolution of the matter but seeks to keep the claims of the creditors and workers uncertain and in a limbo for all times to come. If a reference can be drawn to the meat of the matter – the conduct of the applicant is simply not kosher."
Case Title: Abhisek Panda & Ors v. West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 239
The Calcutta High Court restrained the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) from discontinuing online courses started by it in 2012 for already enrolled students and further opined that degrees and diplomas awarded on successful completion of the courses will be deemed to have been issued with the approval of the University Grants Commission. In or about in 2012, NUJS had decided to start online courses in various subjects and for proper administration of these courses it took the assistance of a facilitator- an organisation called Ipleaders. Thereafter, IPleaders and NUJS made an arrangement between themselves with regard to allocation of work and responsibilities and the sharing of revenue earned from the students. A Bench comprising Justice Subhendu Samanta and Justice I. P. Mukerji opined that it would be inequitable to discontinue the courses and accordingly underscored, "In our opinion, at this point of time it would be most inequitable and unjust to de-recognise the course cancel it and direct refund of fees. Since on the representation of the University the students had undertaken this method of study and thus altered their position, the doctrine of promissory estoppel would prevent the University from calling off this course. It would also prevent the University Grants Commission from de-recognising it."
Case Title: Electrosteel Castings Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 240
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that cess is not applicable on the coal used as an input for manufacturing finished goods for the domestic supply. The single bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has observed that goods which are subject to a nil rate of cess would be construed as exempt supplies for purposes of the formula prescribed in Rule 89 (4) of the CGST Rules. Therefore, it deserves to be excluded from the calculation of adjusted total turnover. he court noted that cess is akin to the components of GST, which is a constitutionally approved amalgam of State taxes, which existed prior to the commencement of the GST regime. The Goods and Services Tax Compensation Cess Rules, 2017 were also framed and made effective from 1st July, 2017, wherein the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 were adapted. Having regard to the conscious use of the expression "mutatis mutandis" in Section 11 of the Cess Act, all the provisions of the CGST and IGST Acts would be squarely applicable to the levy, collection, and refund of the Cess Act. The words "tax" and "cess" for the purpose of the Act would have to be used interchangeably.
Case Title: Niladri Saha v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 241
The Calcutta High Court vide order dated June 15 has reiterated that the State authorities must assess the ground situation and take steps to deploy central paramilitary forces if the need arises before any loss of life or property takes place. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a batch of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions seeking deployment of central paramilitary forces in West Bengal amid the ongoing protests against offensive remarks made against Prophet Mohammed by former BJP spokespersons Nupur Sharma and Naveen Kumar Jindal. Pursuant to a perusal of the rival submissions on Wednesday, the Court ordered, "Having regard to the apprehension which have been expressed, we direct the State authorities to assess the ground situation in advance and take steps to call for the Central Forces in terms of earlier directions in case if the need so arises, before the situation goes out of control or before any loss of life or property takes place."
Case Title: Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 242
The Calcutta High Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to set up a special investigation team (SIT) under the supervision of a Joint Director of its anti-corruption branch to probe alleged irregularities in the recruitment of teachers in state government-sponsored and aided primary schools. The Court also directed that the SIT members cannot be transferred from Kolkata until the conclusion of the probe. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay on the last date of hearing had directed the CBI to file an FIR to initiate an investigation into alleged illegal recruitment of teachers by the board based on the teachers' eligibility test in 2014. Furthermore, the primary education board secretary Ratna Chakraborti Bagchi and president Manik Bhattacharya were also ordered to appear before the CBI at its office later by 5pm on Monday. "CBI shall constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of competent officers who will be the only members of the SIT and whose names will be supplied to this court on 17th June, 2022 when these two matters will appear under the heading "To Be Mentioned" at the top of the list. The Joint Director who is now heading the Anti-Corruption Bureau of CBI shall be the head of the SIT whose name also shall be intimated to this court by CBI on 17.06.2022. The members of SIT and the said Joint Director shall not be transferred from Kolkata till the investigation is complete in every respect", the Court ordered.
Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Jain v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 243
The Calcutta High Court ordered the setting up of a special investigating team (SIT) to investigate the death of a 25-year-old woman Rasika Jain, who had fallen from the third-floor terrace of her in-law's house in February 2021, following which her family members complained of foul play. They moved the High Court claiming that the police were not properly pursuing the case and prayed for the court's intervention. Justice Shampa Sarkar opined that the investigation into the case by the State police authorities has been 'slow and directionless' and further underscored, "Having considered the graveness of the allegations, the social position of the parties and the unfortunate events which led to the death of the young lady and especially in view of the delay which has occurred in the interregnum period, this Court is of the view that the investigation ought to have been conducted in a more speedy and systematic manner. It has been rather slow and directionless. The offences relate to dowry death and crime against women. It has a huge social impact." Directing the special commissioner of police, Kolkata, Damayanti Sen to set up the SIT within seven days and start the investigation, the Court ordered, "The Court directs Smt. Damayanti Sen, Special Commissioner of Police (II), Kolkata Police, to constitute her own team of competent officers to take over the investigation. At least a team of five officers must be constituted."
Case Title: Suresh Babu @ Arakkal Arjunan Suresh Babu v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 244
The Calcutta High Court held that a customer merely visiting a brothel for sexual pleasure cannot be held liable for offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (Act). Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee underscored that what is punishable under the Act is sexual exploitation or abuse of a person for commercial purpose and to earn the bread thereby, keeping or allowing a premises as brothel. "Mere visiting the house of sex worker as customer cannot be presumed to be living on earnings of sex workers. To invoke the presumption it must be shown that he was found in the company of the sex worker on some other occasion," the Court observed. Accordingly, the Court quashed the chargesheet and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner by observing, "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the materials that the petitioner was found in the alleged brothel as customer and that on the date of occurrence he only went there after coming from Dubai to have sex with a sex worker in lieu of money and in the absence of any evidence that he is living on the earning of any of the accused/sex worker or is a habitual visitor of the said place and thereby has exercised control, direction or influence over the movement of any of the sex worker against which can be said to be aiding or abetting their sex work or that he was habitually living with any of the accused sex worker, I find that the sections in which the cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate against the present petitioner is bad in law and the said cognizance is taken without considering the materials in the case diary."
Case Title: Pranati Aguan v. State of West Bengal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 245
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that the right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution does not mean giving equal treatment or equal protection of the law to persons who are unequals and that its violation would entail giving iniquitous treatment to persons falling within the same bracket despite their homogeneous characteristics. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon a plea seeking cancellation of amendments made to the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for appointment to the Posts of Headmaster/Headmistress in Secondary or Higher Secondary and Junior High Schools) Rules, 2016 as notified on March 24, 2017 and all subsequent Notifications issued thereafter to the extent of imposing enhanced qualifications for selection of Headmasters/Headmistresses in Secondary, Higher Secondary and Junior High Schools. Enumerating further upon what constitutes 'reasonable classification' under Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court underscored, "The safeguard in Article 14 of the Constitution is to prevent discriminatory treatment of persons who claim to be equals; the right does not mean giving equal treatment or equal protection of the law to persons who are unequals and would hence require differential treatment for preserving their unique and individual characteristics. The image which comes to mind is of 3 persons of unequal height being given 3 ladders to see beyond a wall; the idea is not to give 3 equal-sized ladders to the 3 persons but giving the tallest ladder to the shortest person and the shortest ladder to the tallest person so that all 3 can look beyond the wall (wishfully at a brighter and more equal future)."
26. Calcutta High Court Disposes BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari's Plea After Speaker Revokes Suspension
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari and Ors v. Hon'ble Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 246
The Calcutta High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the decision of West Bengal Assembly Speaker Biman Bandyopadhyay to suspend Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari and four other BJP MLAs from the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. The Court was apprised that the Speaker on Thursday had revoked the suspension of the BJP MLAs including that of Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari after consultation with the State's Parliamentary Affairs Minister Partha Chatterjee. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha had earlier sought response from Speaker Biman Bandyopadhyay in the plea filed by the saffron party legislators challenging his decision. Thereafter, the Court had underscored that the pendency of the plea would not stand in the way of the parties resolving the issue in accordance with rules. "This Court is relieved to note that the motion suspending the petitioners from the House has come for consideration on another motion moved to withdraw the same. Suspension has been terminated", the Court observed.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. versus Assistant Commissioner
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 247
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has held that the GST order passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing is against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has challenged the adjudication order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The primary ground of challenge was that the order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice by not affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners in spite of a specific request. The court set aside the GST order and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Officer to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorised representative within eight weeks.
Case Title: In the matter of : Ved Prakash Arya v. State
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 248
The Calcutta High Court has recently expressed its displeasure at the way cases involving sex trafficking of minor girls are being conducted in the State and has accordingly directed the Director General of Police, West Bengal to ensure that such cases are transferred to the Anti Human Trafficking Unit so that they can be investigated by specialised officers, preferably lady officers. Opining that victims require psychological counselling which the investigating agencies have failed to provide, a Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay underscored, "We note with anguish indifferent manner in which cases involving sex trafficking of minor girls are being conducted. These cases require to be investigated by a specialised agency manned by police personnel who are duly sensitised in the matter. Victims in such cases are either women or minor coming from weak and marginal sections of society. They require proper protection, support and assistance including psychological counselling. We notice no steps are taken by the investigating agencies in this regard." The Court thus directed the Director General of Police, West Bengal to take necessary steps so that cases involving trafficking of women particularly minors for sexual exploitation are transferred to the Anti Human Trafficking Unit for investigation and to ensure that victims are granted interim compensation and psychological support.
Case Title: Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 249
The Calcutta High Court observed that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the CBI which is probing into the alleged illegal appointment of teachers in West Bengal government-sponsored and aided primary schools, will also look into the cases of irregularities in recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff in secondary schools on the purported recommendation of the school service commission (SSC). The counsel appearing for the CBI apprised Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay about the constitution of the SIT in accordance with his earlier order. The CBI submitted the names of six SIT members, who will be investigating the cases under close supervision of its anti-corruption branch's superintendent of police, and its joint director. The Court further ordered that CBI Joint Director N. Venugopal shall head the SIT and supervise the whole investigation. "..I want to make it clear that the Joint Director Mr. N. Venugopal shall be the head of the SIT meaning thereby he will supervise the investigation of SIT for the purpose for which it has been constituted", the Court underscored.
30. 'No Illegality': Calcutta High Court Upholds State Govt's Door Step Ration Delivery Scheme
Case Title: Sk. Manowar Ali & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 250
The Calcutta High Court has held that there is no illegality in the West Bengal Duare Ration scheme, under which the State government delivers foodgrains through the public distribution system at the doorsteps of beneficiaries. Justice Krishna Rao was adjudicating upon a plea wherein a prayer had been made stipulating that a notification by the state government on September 13, 2021, which amended Clause 18 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, be declared as unconstitutional and ultra vires to Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA, 2013). Upholding the constitutional validity of the impugned notification, the Court ruled, "On conjoint reading of Section 24 (2) (b) and Section 32 of NFSA 2013 and clause 35 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 this Court hold that there is no illegality in amending clause 18 of West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 by notification dt. 13th September, 2021." The Court averred further, "Section 24 (2) (b) of the NFSA obliges the State Governments to ensure actual delivery of supply of food grains to the entitled persons at the prices specified in Schedule-I. Therefore, the State Government wishes to travel the extra mile to deliver the foodgrains at the doorsteps of the beneficiaries, such an endeavor cannot be said to fall foul of any provisions of NFSA, the rules framed there under or the orders issued under the ECA, 1955".
Case Title: Salem Khan v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 251
The Calcutta High Court refused to transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the investigation into the death of student activist Anis Khan. Anish Khan was found dead at his home in Amta block in Howrah district in the early hours of Saturday, February 19, 2022 under mysterious circumstances. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha refused to transfer the investigation to the CBI by opining that the SIT in its investigation report has itself implicated some police officials and thus the apprehension that the accused police officers wold be shielded by SIT is unfounded. "In the instant case, the SIT itself has implicated some police officials in its investigation report, finding fault with the manner and conduct of raid. The petitioner's apprehension that the accused police officers would be shielded by the police, is therefore devoid of merit. In the facts of the case, merely because some police officers are involved there is no need for apprehending of impropriety in the investigation or the trial as the SIT is comprised of very highly ranked police personnel. Any other omission or mistake in future can be addressed under the provisions of the Cr.PC", the Court ruled. Justice Mantha further averred that it is expected that the charge-sheet is put up for committal and the trial is commenced and concluded expeditiously, but not later than six months from the date of committal.
Case Title: Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 252
The Calcutta High Court removed Trinamool MLA Manik Bhattacharya from the post of Chairman of the Board of Primary Education with immediate effect in connection with alleged irregularities in the recruitment of teachers in state government-sponsored and aided primary schools. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had earlier ordered a court-monitored probe by a special investigation team of the CBI into the alleged illegal appointments of at least 269 primary teachers. The Court further ordered that Ratna Chakraborty Bagchi, the Secretary of the Board, would remain in charge till a new appointment is made to the Chairman of the Board. Furthermore, Bhattacharya was instructed to appear in person before the Court by 2pm on Tuesday for further interrogation. "..this court removes Mr. Manik Bhattacharya from the post of President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education forthwith and I direct the Government to appoint any other fit person as President of the Board and till the new President is appointed, the Secretary of the Board namely, Ratna Chakraborty Bagchi will perform the function of the President of the Board", the Court ordered.
Case Title: Maleka Khatun v. The State of West Bengal and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 253
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) for not having enough funds to provide compensation to victims as per the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017 and thus directed the State government to ensure disbursal of adequate funds within 6 weeks. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed, "This court has noted in other matters of similar nature that the SLSA has not been provided with the funds for disbursement towards victim compensation. In a similar matter of 2021, SLSA has submitted before this court that it had funds only of an amount of Rs.5,000/- and was hence not in a position to disburse the victim compensation. This is a sorry state of affairs to say the least." Opining that the current state of affairs cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely, the Court ruled, "The Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Notification published by the State in 2017 makes it mandatory on the State Government not only to make a separate budget for victim compensation but also to constitute a fund with the specific nomenclature of "Victim Compensation Fund" for disbursing amount to the victims who need rehabilitation. This state of affairs cannot surely be permitted to continue for an indefinite period of time. Victims who have suffered loss or injury or any kind of physical or mental agony have been brought within the purview of The Code of Criminal Procedure for a stated purpose. The State or the SLSA cannot take the position that it does not have funds to compensate the victims."
Case Title: Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority v. Bengal Unitech Siliguri Projects Limited
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 254
The Calcutta High Court observed that an award holder has the statutory safeguard under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) to secure the entire arbitral award amount even during the pendency of an application for setting aside of the award and that such a security must be real and not illusionary or insignificant. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf was adjudicating upon a petition filed under Section 34 of the Act along with an application under Section 36 (2) of the Act praying for stay of the award passed by the arbitral tribunal on December 27, 2021. Dismissing the contention of the petitioner that the land in possession of the respondent must be considered as sufficient security under Section 36 of the Act, the Court underscored, "Lastly, it is my view that the amended Section 36 of the Act, provides for securing the award holder for the entirety of the award value. It should also be noted that the security must be real and not illusionary or insignificant. Thus, the argument by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the land in possession of the respondent must be considered as sufficient security under Section 36 does not hold water. The land offered for the purpose of security is part of the dispute between the parties. Furthermore, no document has been placed before this court to indicate that the value of the land would cover the entirety of the award. Ergo, the same cannot be accepted for securing the interest of the award holder." Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the arbitral award (including interest calculated till June, 2022) by way of cash security or its equivalent to the satisfaction of the Registrar Original Side, High Court at Calcutta.
Case Title: In the matter of : Kalu Sk. @ Kuran v. State
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 255
In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court directed that in all cases involving recovery of narcotic substances, seizing officers shall make a video recording of the entire procedure and that reasons for failing to videograph the recovery must be specifically stated in the investigation records. A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay opined that all police officers are ordinarily equipped with smartphones and other electronic gadgets which would enable them to videograph such a recovery procedure. It was further observed that reliance on such technology must be placed to instil fairness, impartiality and confidence in the investigative process. Highlighting the importance of a legitimate recovery procedure, the Court averred, "While a strict law is necessary to control organized crime like drug trafficking and protect the youth from the menace of drug abuse, its draconian provisions are sometimes misused by investigating agency leading to false implication and prolonged unjustified detention of individuals. Most of the cases registered under the N.D.P.S. Act revolve around recovery of narcotic substance from the accused. Heart and soul of the prosecution is the legitimacy of such recovery. Prosecution in such cases primarily relies on the evidence of official witnesses particularly seizing officers to prove lawful recovery of contraband. In most cases as in the present case, independent witnesses are either not examined or turn hostile. There may be myriad reasons for that ranging from false implication to winning over of such witnesses by resourceful accuseds." Thus, the Court proceeded to issue a host of directions in this regard.
Case Title: Md. Safique Mallick v. The State of West Bengal & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 256
The Calcutta High Court observed that denial of economic support to the wife and the minor son constitutes 'domestic violence' under Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, 2005) and that it is immaterial whether the parties are still residing in a shared household or not. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee was adjudicating upon a plea seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 12 of the DV Act pending before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Opining that denial of economic support would constitute domestic violence, the Court underscored, "Denial of economic support to petitioner as well as their minor son, who has been brought up by the opposite party no. 2 may amount to "economic abuse" as per definition of "domestic violence" under the Act and for that purpose it is not material whether parties are still residing jointly in a shared household or not. In such case, even if opposite party No.2, might have been a working lady, even then whether her earning is adequate, fair and consistent with the living up bringing of their son to which the parties are accustomed is also to be looked into to decide the issue of economic abuse." Accordingly, the Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner by observing, "Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and that prayer for the cancellation of Talak is still sub-judice and not yet finalised and also considering the fact that under Section 3 of DV Act, 2005, "domestic violence" includes emotional abuse as well as economic abuse, it can hardly be said at this stage that even though both the parties are residing separately the opposite party no. 2 cannot be categorised as "aggrieved person".
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sanjib Halder
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 257
The Calcutta High Court reiterated its recommendation of amending the Crime Manual, 2022 of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to empower the Additional Solicitor General of the High Court to give his opinion on filing appeals challenging court orders and on the basis of such an opinion, the zonal office of the CBI may be permitted to file an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri noted that despite prior directions of the Supreme Court the central agency always files appeals after the expiry of the period of limitation and that an inordinate delay is caused for filing appeals especially against orders of acquittal passed by Trial Courts. Opining that the CBI should trust the expert opinion of the Additional Solicitor General more than the Director of CBI as the former has a better legal acumen, the Court underscored, "In case of the High Court, the learned Additional Solicitor General is the authorized legal representative of the Central Government. His opinion may be obtained by the CBI to come to a decision as to whether an appeal should be preferred against a judgment and order of acquittal or for enhancement of sentence by the CBI or not. This Court fails to understand why the case record will travel to Delhi to obtain formal permission of the Director of CBI for filing an appeal before this Court when the Director of CBI is after all a senior police officer. This Court obviously trusts and hopes that the Central Government in its executive branch will also trust the expert opinion of the learned Additional Solicitor General more than the Director of CBI who may have varied experience in investigation but he does not have better legal acumen than the Additional Solicitor General."
Case Title: Sri Daksh Singhal & Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 258
The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside the nominations made to post-graduate medical courses in the Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education & Research (IPGEM&R) by a private Trust by opining that such a process turns a blind eye to merit and that it would entail the public being on the receiving end of sponsoring future-doctors without knowing whether they are the best of the pick. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed, "There is no intelligible benchmark disclosed by the Trust as to the reason why the private respondents were recommended for admission despite having lower ranks compared to the petitioners in the NEET - PG Test. The assessment hence is a parallel selection process outside the recommended statutory framework and is subversive of the Act and the Regulations. The Trust has not only turned a blind eye to merit but has doffed its hat to the dilution of merit. The State is hence precluded by law to accept the recommendations."
39. Calcutta High Court Orders Police Authorities To Keep Vigil, Curb Kidnapping Incidents
Case Title: Ashok Jana v. The State of West Bengal & ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 259
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday personally interacted with a minor victim girl who had allegedly been kidnapped and thereafter ordered for the girl to be handed over to her parents pursuant to her request. Justice Shampa Sarkar had earlier directed the Superintendent of Police, Purba Medinipur to file a report before the Court indicating the reasons as to why the minor girl who was allegedly kidnapped, has not yet been recovered. "The victim girl has been traced. She has been produced before the court. The court has interacted with the girl, privately. The girl has expressed her firm desire to go back to her parents. The court has also spoken to the parents, who were in court", the order read. Accordingly, the plea was disposed of by expressing caution that the concerned police authorities must keep a vigil so that the same incident is not repeated.
Case Title: Dr. Kunal Saha v. West Bengal Medical Council (WBMC) and another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 260
The Calcutta High Court ordered that the present West Bengal Medical Council will stand dissolved from July 31 on the ground that no elections for the constitution of a new Council has been held since 1988 and further directed that a newly duly-elected Medical Council should be constituted latest by October 31, 2022. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed, "Thus, this court expresses its reservations as to the palpable inaction on the part of the West Medical Council in not holding any elections and/or constituting a new Council since 1988." The Court further noted that the last elected body spent its five-year tenure long back, in the year 1988 and that in the last 34 years, which is almost seven times five, neither has any ad hoc body been appointed, nor any election held. "However, for obvious reasons, the present Council members took no steps worthy of exhibiting their bona fides for taking steps to organize elections after the year 1988 but chose to hibernate in the stupor of protracted perpetuation of their power", the Court underscored further.
Case Title: Abdul Khalek Laskar & Anr v. Union of India & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 261
The Calcutta High Court directed central agencies- Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED), as well as the State government to hand over the money recovered from the sale of assets pertaining to the Saradha group of companies to a one-man committee comprising of Justice S.P. Talukdar, former Judge of the High Court. The Court further directed SEBI to conduct sale of remaining properties of the company through its usual procedure pursuant to which a report was ordered to be furnished to the Committee. The defrauded depositors apprised a Bench comprising Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice Subhendu Samanta that diverse authorities like C.B.I., E.D and State government etc. have in their possession some funds belonging to the company and thus prayed for the entire fund including the sale proceeds realized by SEBI to be handed over to the committee for the issuance of appropriate directions. Accordingly, the Court ordered, "Considering these submissions, we direct that the one-man committee headed by Mr. Justice S.P. Talukdar(retired), shall deal with the matter. All funds belonging to the company after deduction of all expenses and fees etc. shall be deposited by the above authorities with the one-man committee or in any bank according to its directions."
Important Developments
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government in a Public Interest Litigation petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 1 crore for the family members of the minor victim in the Hanshkhali gangrape and murder case which is currently being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The PIL filed by petitioner Anindya Sundar Das alleged that no compensation has yet been provided by the State government to the family members of the deceased victim. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for the issuance of directions to the West Bengal Legal Services Authority and the Nadia District Legal Services Authority to grant the compensation amount. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Monday that the Court has the power to direct the grant of interim compensation to the family members of the deceased victim as per various rulings of the Supreme Court. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court directed the State government to file an affidavit-in-opposition within a period of 3 weeks. Furthermore, the petitioner was also ordered to file a reply to the State's affidavit-in-opposition before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on June 28.
Case Title: Shaista Afreen and Ors v. State of West Bengal
A plea has been raised before the Calcutta High Court on Monday on behalf of the parents of the deceased minor victim in the Hanshkhali gangrape and murder case, citing misconduct of concerned State police authorities. The Court had earlier ordered a probe by the CBI into the case. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that the parents of the victim are present in Court and that they have alleged misconduct by the concerned police authorities. The Court was further apprised that the parents are aggrieved by the actions of the Inspector-in-Charge and the second officer of the concerned police station. Taking cognisance of the matter, the Court permitted the counsel to place on record the grievances raised in the form of an affidavit before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on June 13.
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government as well the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a plea against the constitution of a five-member fact-finding committee of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to probe into the violence in Birbhum district of West Bengal, in which ten persons were killed allegedly in retaliation to the murder of local All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Bhadu Sheikh. The plea filed by petitioner one Preeti Kar contended that since the CBI is already enquiring into the incident, no 'parallel enquiry' by the fact finding committee of the BJP is required as it might delay the progress of the overall investigation. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the counsel for the petitioner to serve copies of the plea to all concerned counsels including the CBI within 2 days. Furthermore, the Court directed the CBI as well as the State government to obtain instructions in the matter before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on June 13.
Case Title: The Court on its own Motion In re: The Brutal Incident of Bogtui Village, Rampurhat, Birbhum
The Calcutta High Court took on record the second progress report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with respect to the the violence in Birbhum district of West Bengal, in which ten persons were killed allegedly in retaliation to the murder of local All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Bhadu Sheikh. The CBI also filed its first status report with respect to the investigation into the murder of TMC leader Bhadu Sheikh. The counsel appearing for the CBI apprised a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that substantial progress has been made in the investigation and that the chargesheet is likely to be filed within 2 weeks. Recording these submissions, the Court adjourned the hearing to June 13.
5. Calcutta High Court Seeks State's Response On PIL Against 'Biswa Bangla' Logo On Govt School Uniform
Case Title: Soumen Halder v. The State Of West Bengal & ors
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition against the decision of the West Bengal government to introduce blue-and-white coloured uniforms for students in all State-run schools which will also feature the 'Biswa Bangla' logo. According to a notification dated March 16 issued by the Paschim Banga Samagra Siksha Mission, students of all government, semi-government and government-aided schools in Bengal will have a common uniform in a blue and white colour scheme which will also feature the Bengal government's 'Biswa Bangla' logo. The PIL filed by petitioner one Soumen Halder seeks an interim stay of such a notification and further avers that encryption of logos in the uniforms of students is a 'political stunt' by the TMC-led government. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the State government to file an affidavit-in-opposition within 4 weeks. The petitioner was further ordered to file a reply to the affidavit-in-opposition within 2 weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the matter was listed for further hearing on August 1.
Case Title: Pallabi Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal
A letter has been addressed to the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court on Saturday seeking immediate constitution of a Bench to urgently adjudicate upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking deployment of central forces in light of the ongoing protests in Howrah against remarks by BJP leaders against Prophet Mohammed. The letter written by advocate Susmita Saha Dutta avers that the law and order is at stake in West Bengal and that the lawlessness is beyond the control of the State administration. It further stipulates, "My Lord, hope Your Lordship will appreciate that law and order in the State of West Bengal is at stake and this lawlessness is beyond the control of the State administration; resultant the present disturbance which has now taken the shape of communal riot will spread like bonfire in the event this Hon'ble Court does not make judicial intervention at once". The PIL filed by petitioner Pallabi Chatterjee seek deployment of central paramilitary forces to tackle the alleged lawlessness that has taken the shape of communal riots. It has further sought for an investigation by the National Investigating Agency (NIA) to probe into the incidents of violence. The petitioner has further submitted that the police authorities are mute spectators and that such inaction on the part of police authorities are violative of the fundamental right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Masum Ali Sardar v. State of West Bengal & Ors and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court sought the State government's response in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against suspended BJP leaders Nupur Sharma and Naveen Kumar Jindal over their derogatory remarks against Prophet Mohammad that led to an outrage in India and in Gulf countries. The plea also sought the recall of orders suspending internet services and imposition of Section 144 of CrPC in areas wherein protests broke out in Howrah district of West Bengal. Furthermore, the constitution of a Committee under the supervision of a retired Judge of the High Court was also sought to inquire into the excesses of law enforcement personnel in the affected areas. The PIL filed by practicing Advocate Masum Ali Sardar through advocate Jhuma Sen averred, "For that not only the petitioner and his community but also a large section of sensible people of other communities of the state expected that the Government, both at the Centre as well the State, would rise to the occasion and take appropriate action against those who had deliberately and publicly acted in a sacrilegious manner so as to humiliate the Prophet." Thus, the petitioner sought for the initiation of criminal proceedings against the suspended BJP leaders under Sections295A, 298, 153 and 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the State government to file a report in the form of affidavit responding to the plea before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on June 15.
8. Calcutta High Court Seeks State Govt's Response On Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Singer KK's Death
Case Title: Imtiaz Ahmed v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court sought the State government's response on a batch of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions seeking an investigation into the death of singer-composer Krishnakumar Kunnath popularly known as KK, who passed away on May 31, 2022, hours after performing in a concert at Kolkata. The leading playback singer was in the city for a two-day concert at Nazrul Mancha as part of the Gurudas College fest organized by the TMC's student union. One of the PILs also sought for a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the ground that there had been utter mismanagement by the authorities at Nazrul Manch and that negligence on the part of the local administration was one of the reasons behind the chaos. Advocate General S.N Mookherjee appearing for the State government however questioned the maintainability of the petitions by contending that not a single complaint had been lodged by the family members of the deceased singer against the progress of the investigation as a result of which the demand for a CBI enquiry does not stand. Pursuant to the rival submissions, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the State government to file an affidavit-in-opposition responding to the allegations within a period of 3 weeks. Any reply was directed to be filed within one week thereafter.
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. Union of India and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court directed the State government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to place their respective positions on record on the plea moved by the CBI seeking to take over the investigation into the incident of firing by CISF personnel on April 10, 2021, at Sitalkuchi in Cooch Behar district during the West Bengal Assembly polls. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appearing for the CBI submitted before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that pursuant to the order of the 5 judge Bench of the High Court dated August 19, 2021, the investigation of 2 cases pertaining to the incident of alleged firing by CISF personnel must be transferred to the CBI. The two cases are- (1) Mathabhanga PS FIR No.180/2021 dated 10.04.2021 and (2) Mathabhanga PS FIR No.181/2021 dated 12.04.2021. On the other hand, Advocate General S.N Mookherjee opposed the prayer made by the CBI for transfer of investigation by contending that the concerned incident did not take place subsequent to the Assembly polls and is thus not the subject matter of the category of cases that the CBI has been instructed to probe by the 5-judge Bench order of the Court. He further argued that it is an admitted fact that the firing had taken place by CISF personnel and thus there are no allegations against the State police authorities. Pursuant to the rival submissions, the Court directed the State government as well as the CBI to place their respective stand on record before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on July 11.
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. Union of India and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court took on record the latest status report filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pertaining to the progress of the investigation with regards to the cases of violence that had allegedly taken place post the declaration of the West Bengal assembly elections in May 2021.A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj took on record the seventh status report filed by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju on behalf of the CBI. The Court also took on record the latest status report filed by the SIT. The counsel appearing for the SIT informed the Bench that 50 cases had been received from the CBI for investigation out of which in 41 cases chargesheets have been filed. It was further submitted by the SIT that in 2 cases non-cognisable reports have been filed and in one case final report has been filed. One case pertains to unnatural death and 3 cases are under investigation, the counsel averred further.
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court was apprised by the State government that the selection process for the appointment of a technical member to the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal has been completed and that the name of the appointee has been forwarded to the Governor for his consideration. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions upon the State government to notify the name of the Chairman of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal and to immediately appoint a technical member to the Tribunal. The Bench was informed by Advocate General S.N Mookherjee that Government of West Bengal vide notification dated June 18, 2022, had notified the appointment of the new Chairman. "So far as the first prayer is concerned, the same stands complied with pursuant to the notification issued by the Government of West Bengal dated 18th June, 2022 and the appointment of the Hon'ble Chairman has been notified", the Court recorded in the order. The Court further directed the State government to file a report indicating further developments in the matter on the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on July 4.
Case Title: Prasenjit Bose v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government and the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited (WBPDCL) in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the ongoing land acquisition for the Deocha-Pachami-Dewanganj-Harinsingha (DPDH) coal mine project on the ground that it violates Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency as prescribed under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Land Acquisition Act, 2013) and the Rules made thereunder. The petition moved by activist and economist Prasenjit Bose through advocate Jhuma Sen alleges that the proposed project breaches the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and Rules framed thereunder, the West Bengal Land Reforms, Act, 1955 and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Srivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Tuesday observed, "We deem it proper to give an opportunity to the respondents to place their respective stand on record before considering the prayer for interim order." Thus, the Court directed the West Bengal government and the WBPDCL to file their affidavit-in-opposition within 2 weeks. Thereafter affidavit-in-reply was ordered to be filed by the petitioner within one week. The matter is slated for further hearing on July 18.
13. Calcutta High Court Stays FIR Registered By WB Police Against CBI Officers Probing Coal Scam
Case Title: In the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation represented by Anupam Mathur & Anr
The Calcutta High Court imposed an interim stay for 6 weeks on the FIR registered by State police authorities against CBI officers for allegedly harassing common people during the ongoing probe into the coal smuggling scam in the State. Pursuant to the order, the State police authorities will not be able to take any further steps in the FIR which names CBI officers including Umesh Kumar, who is leading the probe. The concerned FIR was filed at the Bishnupur police station under Diamond Harbour sub-division of South 24-Parganas. A resident of Diamond Harbour had filed a complaint at Bishnupur police station alleging that he, along with some other people, were threatened by CBI officers in the name of interrogation in connection with the coal and cattle smuggling cases. Issuing an interim stay, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed, "In the meantime, there shall be stay of further investigation into the offences punishable under Sections34/120B/166/167/193/195/195A/196/465/467/468/471/506( ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 361/2022 dated 27.05.2022 for a period of six weeks."
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. Sri Manoj Malaviya, IPS and others
The Calcutta High Court issued notice to the West Bengal's Director General of Police, Manoj Malviya and two other IPS officers in a contempt petition filed by BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari for allegedly violating an earlier order by restricting Adhikari from going to Netai village in Jhargram district on January 7, 2022. Notice was also served on two other IPS officers namely former Jhargram district police superintendent, Biswajit Ghosh and the current Jhargram district additional police superintendent (headquarter), Kalyan Sarkar. "In fact, it is evident from the nature of the pleadings and the video footage as referred to above, that the alleged contemnors deliberately prevented the petitioner and blocked him, at a distance from Netai village, from going on to the said village", the Court opined further. The Court accordingly directed the contemnors to be personally present in Court on the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on July 28 at 10: 30 a.m.
