- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest:...
Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: May 2022 [Citations 154 - 220]
Aaratrika Bhaumik
1 Jun 2022 3:53 PM GMT
![Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: May 2022 [Citations 154 - 220]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/02/01/750x450_408693-calcutta-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: May 2022 [Citations 154 - 220]")
Nominal Index [2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 154 To 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 220] Pallabi Chatterjee and Ors v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 154Dipok Dinda v. State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 155Future Market Networks Limited versus Laxmi Pat Surana & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 156In Re : State of West Bengal vs. Md. Younus @ Bilal & Ors 2022...
Nominal Index [2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 154 To 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 220]
Pallabi Chatterjee and Ors v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 154
Dipok Dinda v. State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 155
Future Market Networks Limited versus Laxmi Pat Surana & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 156
In Re : State of West Bengal vs. Md. Younus @ Bilal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 157
Sekh Jamir and Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 158
Pallabi Chatterjee and Ors v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 159
Amrita Pandey v. The Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 160
Kader Khan v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 161
Dr. Kunal Saha v. University of Calcutta & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 162
In the matter of Dunlop India Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 163
Damodar Valley Corporation versus Reliance Infrastructure Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 164
Bhaskar Banerjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 165
Indian Jute Mills Association and Anr v. Union of India and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 166
Sanghamitra Bhattacharya v. Sudeshna Kar & Ors 2022 Live Law (Cal) 167
Aminul Islam @ Amenur Molla v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 168
Suraj Singh v. State of West Bengal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 169
The Court on its own Motion In re: The Brutal Incident of Bogtui Village, Rampurhat, Birbhum 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 170
Ali Hossain Sk. @ Ali Hussain Seikh v. Narcotics Control Bureau 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 171
Chitta Biswas v. The State of West Bengal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 172
Anita Nigam v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 173
Soma Sinha v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 174
Sanchita Kundu & Anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 175
Govardhan Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 176
Rajinder Lohar v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 177
Aniruddha Prasad Singh @ Sinha v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 178
In the matter of: Parimal Sardar@Parimal Sikdar 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 179
Md Jamiruddin v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 180
Sova Rani Misra v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 181
Salema Bibi v. State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 182
Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 183
Narayan Chandra Maiti v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 184
Ramabatar Rajbar @ Ramawatar Nimtar Rajwar v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 185
Dr Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 186
Laxmi Tunga v. State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 187
Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 188
Aditya Birla Finance Ltd v. Mcleod Russel India Ltd. and Ors Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 189
Priyanka Tibrewal v. State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 190
Bhadrish Jayantilal Sheth Versus Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 191
State of West Bengal v. Consideration of State Government Employee 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 192
Smt Kalabati Mondal v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 193
Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 194
Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 195
Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 196
Partha Chatterjee v Laxmi Tunga 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 197
Alo Rani Sarkar v. Swapan Majumdar 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 198
Kaniska Roy & Anr v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 199
New Eureka Travels Club v. South Bengal State Transport Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 200
Assistant Commissioner v. Ashok Sureka 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 201
Piyarul Sk v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 202
The Chairperson, West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights v. Election Commission of India & Others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 203
Md. Firoz Ala @ Firoj Alam v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 204
Asansol Mini Bus Association and others v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 205
SREI Equipment Finance Limited versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 206
Shri Sadhan Roy v. Arvind Kumar Singh 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 207
Mritunjay Singh v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 208
M/s One Textile v. Umesh Bharech 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 209
The State of West Bengal & Ors v. Gandhi Memorial Girls' High School & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 210
Ajet Ali Baidya v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 211
Shukla Mondal @ Sumi v. State of W.B. & another 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 212
Raju Mitra & Ors v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 213
NBCC (India) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. A.P.O No. 11 of 2022 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 214
Kashinath Dey @ Kashi v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 215
Sri Anish Loharuka v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 216
Hafija Laskar v. The State of West Bengal and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 217
Susmita Saha Dutta v. Avishek Bandyopadhyay 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 218
Yes Bank Limited v. Malati Saha 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 219
Sulogna Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 220
Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Pallabi Chatterjee and Ors v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 154
The Calcutta High Court directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and the State Legal Services Authority (SALSA) to expeditiously decide a representation seeking compensation for the victims and their family members pertaining to the 5 recent rape cases that have been reported in various districts of West Bengal last month. The counsel appearing for the petitioner apprised a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakasha Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that a communication had been sent to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and the State Legal Services Authority (SALSA) seeking compensation for the victims and their kin under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. Accordingly, the Court directed the authorities to take action on the representation as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2 weeks. The Court also took on record the status report indicating the progress of the investigation into the cases as also the case diary.
Case Title: Dipok Dinda v. State of West Bengal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 155
The Calcutta High Court appointed an Amicus Curiae to deal with petitions pertaining to illegal encroachment of water bodies in the State. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed that several petitions are being filed before the Court alleging that water bodies in the State are being illegally filed up. Opining that a comprehensive examination is required, the Court remarked, "We find that several such petitions are filed before this Court with the allegation that the water bodies in the State either belonging to the government or to the private persons are being illegally filled up. Therefore, a comprehensive examination of the issue is required." Accordingly, the Court directed advocate Anindya Lahiri to act as an Amicus Curiae and assist the Court in examining the issue. The Court was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that the property situated at the District of Purba Medinipur, Block – Panskura-II, Mouza – Bangalur, J.L. no.317, Khatian no.1 and Dag no.17, which is a government property and a water body classified as Khal, is being illegally filled up by some unknown persons by encroaching upon the same.
3. Post-Award Interest Is Not Advisory But A Mandate Of The A&C Act: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Future Market Networks Limited versus Laxmi Pat Surana & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 156
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that award of future or post-award interest is not advisory but a mandate of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) and it should be given its due weightage. The Single Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya reiterated that post award interest is a safeguard against delayed payment of the amount awarded to the award holder. An arbitral award was passed in the arbitral proceedings between the parties. The respondent no. 1/ award holder Laxmi Pat Surana filed a petition for execution of the award. The petitioner/award debtor filed an application before the Calcutta High Court for seeking a stay of the arbitral award under Section 36 of the A&C Act. The High Court ruled that as per the law laid down in Hyder Consulting (UK) (2014), the word "sum" means award plus interest taken as an indivisible whole in respect of Section 31(7)(a) of the A&C Act for grant of pre-award interest. The Court added that the same interpretation can be stretched to cover Section 31(7)(b) for post-award interest. The Court held that award of future/post-award interest is not advisory but a mandate of the A&C Act and is to be given its due weightage. The Court reiterated that it is a safeguard against delayed payment of the amount awarded to the award-holder.
Case Title: In Re : State of West Bengal vs. Md. Younus @ Bilal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 157
A Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist was produced before the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday from Tihar Correctional Home in New Delhi as he has expressed his desire to argue in person his appeal against the order of conviction and death sentence imposed upon him. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi conducted a hearing on a vacation day considering the urgency of the matter. The convict, one Sk. Abdul Nayeem, was produced before the Bench under proper escort from the Tihar Correctional Home. He prayed before the Bench to supply him with copies of material exhibits in order to enable him to prepare his arguments in appeal. In order to enable the convict to effectively argue his appeal, the Court ordered that he should be kept in Presidency Correctional Home in Kolkata during the hearing of the appeal. "In order to enable the said convict to effectively argue his appeal before this court, we consider it imperative that the said convict be kept in a correctional home in Kolkata during the hearing of the appeal. Director General, West Bengal Correctional Services and Director General of Police, West Bengal is directed to make appropriate arrangements so that the said convict may be handed over to the custody of the Superintendent, Presidency Correctional Home, Kolkata by the police personnel who have escorted the said convict from Delhi", the Court ordered.
Case Title: Sekh Jamir and Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 158
The Calcutta High Court upheld a Single Judge order allowing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take up investigation afresh in respect of a case pertaining to the West Bengal post poll violence even after the charge sheet had already been filed by the State police for the same offence and the case had already been committed for trial. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon an appeal preferred against an order of a Single Judge dated March 21, 2022 wherein it had been held that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is not warranted especially when an alternative effective remedy is available to the appellant under Section 482 of CrPC. Pursuant to the submissions of the parties, the Bench observed that the appellants are not entitled to any relief as they have not approached the writ court with 'clean hands' as they had not filed the last page of the chargesheet wherein the concerned Magistrate had given permission to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by observing, "The view which is taken by the learned Single Judge is duly supported by the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since, alternative efficacious remedy under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is available which the appellants may avail in accordance with law, therefore, we are not examining the issue on merit which has been argued before this Court by referring to several judgments."
Case Title: Pallabi Chatterjee and Ors v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 159
The Calcutta High Court vide order dated May 4, 2022 has directed IPS officer Amit P. Javalgi to oversee the investigation into the case of death by suicide by a class eight girl at Moynaguri, West Bengal following the commission of the offence of attempt to rape upon her. The minor victim girl who had set herself ablaze following a threat to withdraw a police complaint regarding the rape attempt on her, succumbed to her injuries in a state-run hospital on April 25. Consequently, a renewed prayer for a CBI probe had been made by the concerned petitioner. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakasha Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed, "Having regard to the chain of events, which are reflected above as also the nature of allegations which have been made and the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that presently the investigation needs to be carried out under the supervision of Shri Amit P Javalgi, IPS, DIG, Jalpaiguri Range. Hence we direct accordingly." It may be noted that back in June 2017, IPS officer Amit P. Javalgi had been removed from his post of Superintendent of Police, Darjeeling following the protest against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee by Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) cadres and the resultant violence that led to the resurrection of demand for Gorkhaland. The Bench further extended police protection to the family members of the deceased victim and other witnesses of the case and underscored that the Director General & Inspector General of Police, West Bengal will be made responsible to ensure that no threat is extended to them.
Case Title: Amrita Pandey v. The Union of India and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 160
The Calcutta High Court on Friday directed that the post mortem examination of deceased BJP worker Arjun Chowrasia should be conducted at the Command Hospital, Kolkata by a team of experts and in the presence of Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24-Parganas. Videography of the post-mortem examination was also ordered to be conducted. According to reports, the deceased, identified as Arjun Chowrasia, was found hanging inside a building in North Kolkata's Ghosh Bagan area. He was a functionary of the BJP Yuva Morcha. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking judicial intervention into the incident of unnatural death on allegations of foul play. "Having regard to the circumstances which have been disclosed before us, we are of the opinion that the post- mortem of the body of deceased Arjun Chaurasia should be done at the Command Hospital which is stated to be only 5-6 kilometers away from R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital", the Court ordered. Directing the Head of the Command Hospital to constitute a team of experts for conducting the post mortem examination, the Court underscored further, "The Head of the Command Hospital will constitute a team of experts for the purpose of the said post-mortem and at the time of post-mortem, expert from AIIMS, Kalyani as also the Head of the Department of Forensic Science, R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital can remain present. The CJM, South 24-Parganas will also remain present at the time of the post-mortem. The videography of the post-mortem will be done." Granting police protection to the kin of the deceased, the Court ordered, "The Commissioner of Police, Kolkata is also directed to ensure that proper police protection is provided to the family members of the deceased."
Case Title: Kader Khan v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 161
The Calcutta High Court has recommended that appropriate amendments be made to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for incorporating provisions for trial in absentia of an absconding accused for better administration of justice and to prevent the loss of valuable evidence due to death of a witness. It set aside, as per the existing law, a lower court order that allowed deposition of a gang rape victim recorded during the trial of three other accused in the same case to be used against two absconding accused, who were arrested later. A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Bivas Pattanayak observed. "Taking note of the pernicious impact of abscondence on speedy justice and rights of victims, this Court proposes that appropriate amendments be made to the Code of Criminal Procedure for incorporating provision for trial in absentia of an absconding accused for better administration of criminal justice." The directions were issued on a petition by Kader Khan, an accused in the infamous Park Street gangrape case of 2012, that challenged the trial court order allowing the prosecution to use deposition of the victim, who died in March 2015, against him during the trial. He had absconded following the incident and was arrested in September 2016. "No Court has jurisdiction to transfer evidence recorded in an earlier trial after its completion as evidence against an accused who had not been put up for trial in the earlier case even if both the trials are in respect of the self-same charge. This is against the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that each criminal case has to be tried on the basis of evidence led in the said case and not by reference to evidence in other cases. Trial Court erred in law to hold such jurisdictional error was a curable irregularity and ought to be condoned under Section 465 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice", the Court held further.
Case Title: Dr. Kunal Saha v. University of Calcutta & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 162
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition against the University of Calcutta for awarding a D.Sc.honorary degree to a doctor against whom the Supreme Court had made scathing remarks for medical negligence and had held him to be primarily responsible for the death of the petitioner's wife. The petitioner had apprised a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that the University of Calcutta (respondent no.1) had committed a gross abuse of power by granting the concerned doctor one Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee (respondent no. 2) with a degree of Doctorate in Science (D.Sc.). Opining that the instant case does not warrant interference by a Constitutional Court, it was held, "It is further found that the selection of the respondent no. 2 by the respondent no. 1 has not undermined the sanctity or honour or dignity of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or violated Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The honorary degrees are awarded to achievers in their respective fields. This does not warrant the interference of the Constitutional Court. Thus, where the nature and subject matter of a decision is not amendable due to judicial process because the court is not competent to deal with the matter, the court should not intrude into such questions."
Case Title: In the matter of Dunlop India Ltd
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 163
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that a person cannot turn back on his obligations on the pretext of an act mistakenly committed especially where the mistake has resulted in certain irreversible consequences or consequences which may be reversed but at substantial cost to the other party to the act. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon an application filed by an individual carrying on business under the name and style of Texworth International for an injunction restraining the Official Liquidator from treating the last bid submitted by the applicant for Rs. 418.11 crores as the applicant's bid against an e-auction Sale Notice for Lot-1 of the property mentioned in the concerned Notice. The Court further noted that Sections 20, 21 and 22 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, contemplate situations where both the parties to an agreement have proceeded on a mistaken belief of a fact essential to the agreement and contemplate that a contract is not voidable because it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force. "Although, the present case is not one of contract, the principle which emerges from the statute and case-law is that a person cannot turn back on his obligations on the pretext of an act mistakenly committed. This is particularly true where the mistake has resulted in certain irreversible consequences or consequences which may be reversed but at substantial cost to the other party to the act", the Court underscored further.
Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation versus Reliance Infrastructure Ltd
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 164
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that financial hardship and financial indebtedness are sufficient grounds for modifying an order passed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to direct the award debtor to deposit the awarded amount by way of cash security. The Single Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the security directed to be deposited by a Court under Section 36 of the A&C Act should be real and realisable, and it ought not to be illusory. The Court added that once a Court exercises its jurisdiction under Section 36 of the A&C Act and directs furnishing of security in a particular mode and manner, it always retains jurisdiction in respect of such security. The Court ruled that an order passed by the Court under Section 36 is an interim order and is subject to alteration and modification. The High Court observed that under Section 36 of the A&C Act, the award debtor is obliged to furnish security in order to obtain stay of the arbitral award. The Court added that the purpose of furnishing security was to ensure and facilitate the fulfilment and enjoyment of a right or a potential right vested in the award holder. The Court ruled that each case is to be decided on its merits and the Court is not bound to order security in each and every case. The Court added that there may be cases where an award debtor is entitled to an unconditional stay of the award, for instance where an award is so perverse, irrational and patently illegal that it ought to be stayed unconditionally.
Case Title: Bhaskar Banerjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 165
The Calcutta High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a lawyer for providing allegedly false and improper legal advice which was instrumental in sanction of a bank loan to a company which was later declared as Non Performing Asset (NPA) with an outstanding due of Rs. 2.57 crores. Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee observed that merely because the lawyer's opinion was not acceptable, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against him especially in the absence of any tangible evidence that he was associated with other conspirators. "..it is beyond doubt that a lawyer owes an "unremitting loyalty" to the interests of the client and it is the lawyer's responsibility to act in a manner that would best advance the interest of the client. Merely because his opinion may not be acceptable, he cannot be mulcted with the criminal prosecution, particularly, in the absence of tangible evidence that he associated with other conspirators. At the most, he may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct if it is established by acceptable evidence and cannot be charged for the offence under sections 420 and 109 IPC along with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link between them", the Court observed.
Case Title: Indian Jute Mills Association and Anr v. Union of India and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 166
The Calcutta High Court has directed the Jute Commissioner to review and re-fix the rate of raw jute if the notified rate cannot be adhered to. Justice Amrita Sinha observed, "The Jute Commissioner is directed to take positive steps and adopt stringent measures to implement the notified rate, but despite all efforts, if it appears that the notified rate cannot be adhered to, then the Jute Commissioner shall review and re-fix the rate taking into consideration the relevant factors as mentioned in the Control Order, 2016." The Court further ordered the Jute Commissioner to collect first-hand information with regards to the rate at which jute is available to the mill owners and thereafter notify the rate after taking into consideration the freight, transportation, handling and storage charges. "The rate should not be fixed upon extraneous consideration and the same must be reviewed at frequent intervals considering the ground realities. The Jute Commissioner should realise that the rate fixed should not be meant only for the purpose of publishing it in the official gazette but for the purpose of practical implementation of the same. Regular raids, search and seizure should be conducted to prevent illegal hoarding or any nefarious activity sending out false signals of scarcity. Stern action should be taken against any /all persons found indulging in any illegal activity and acting with vested interest leading to the rise in the price of raw jute", the Court directed further.
Case Title: Sanghamitra Bhattacharya v. Sudeshna Kar & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 Live Law (Cal) 167
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday has observed that a writ Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot impose a penalty which is not contemplated in the concerned statutory rules in exercise of its so called plenary jurisdiction. A Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta observed, "..the writ court discharges his solemn duties to uphold the law and render justice in accordance with law and not to break or bend it. The penalty which is not contemplated in the said disciplinary Rule cannot be imposed in exercise of so-called plenary jurisdiction which has a different concept and cannot be assumed to show wide or even wider power to overreach the provision of law." The Court further observed that a writ court cannot assume the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority and proceed in violation of the statutory provisions by inflicting the penalties not contemplated in the statutory Rules.
Case Title: Aminul Islam @ Amenur Molla v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 168
The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside a conviction under Section 324 of the IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) by observing that the medical evidence pertaining to the nature of the injury sustained would prevail over the ocular evidence of the victim. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri was adjudicating upon an appeal moved against an order of conviction passed by the concerned trial court under Section 324 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment imposed for a term of one year along with a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for further 3 months. "The Court cannot deny that P.W.4 received cut injury on his head but in order to ascertain the nature of injury, the evidence of expert can only be relied on. When the medical officer stated that P.W.4 sustained lacerated injury, the said injury cannot be treated as incised wound on the basis of ocular testimony of P.W.4", the Court observed. The Court further observed that if the victim had been assaulted with the help of a Hasua on his head, there would have been an incised wound whoever no such incised wound was found on his head. Thus, it was held that when the allegation of the prosecution is that the appellant had assaulted the victim with a hasua, in the absence incised cut injury, the appellant cannot be connected with the injury sustained by the victim.
Case Title: Suraj Singh v. State of West Bengal & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 169
The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside the conviction of an accused for commission of the offence under Section 361 of the IPC (kidnapping from lawful guardianship) after observing that the minor victim was fully aware of the consequences of her going away with the accused and that there is no evidence that she was induced or enticed by the accused. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed, "In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence that the victim girl was induced or enticed by the appellant. For the reasons stated above and in view of the fact that the victim was fully aware of the consequences of her going away with the appellant, the appellant cannot be held liable under Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code." The Court further noted, "Neither the victim girl, nor the de facto complainant made any allegation against the appellant to the effect that the victim girl was compelled to marry any person against her will or that she was forced or seduced to illicit intercourse", the Court noted further.
Case Title: The Court on its own Motion In re: The Brutal Incident of Bogtui Village, Rampurhat, Birbhum
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 170
The Calcutta High Court on Friday dismissed a prayer seeking cancellation of bail granted to two minor accused persons by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Birbhum at Suri in the case pertaining to 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 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is currently probing the case. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed that since the aggrieved parties have the remedy of filing a revision petition before the High Court under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2015 Act) such a plea seeking cancellation of bail cannot be entertained. "Since an appropriate remedy of revision against the orders in question is available, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the facts of the present case, it would be more appropriate for the parties to avail that remedy. All the grounds which have been raised before this Court assailing the orders of the JJB can be raised in the revision petition and we are hopeful that if any such revision petition is filed, the same will be duly considered and decided in accordance with law after considering the grounds raised therein", the Court observed.
Case Title: Ali Hossain Sk. @ Ali Hussain Seikh v. Narcotics Control Bureau
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 171
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that a Gazetted Officer who is a member of the raiding party cannot be said to be an independent person and thus a desire expressed by accused persons to be searched by such an officer does not constitute a voluntary relinquishment of the right enshrined under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was adjudicating upon an appeal moved against an order passed by the concerned lower Court convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 22(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Opining further that such a Gazetted Officer cannot be said to be an independent person before whom such a search can be conducted under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the Court underscored, "A Gazetted Officer who had proceeded to the place of occurrence after entertaining reasonable belief that the accused persons may be carrying narcotic substance cannot be said to be an independent person before whom the law contemplates a search. In this backdrop, acceptance of the offer by the appellants to be searched before an officer who is a member of the raiding party cannot be said to be a voluntary expression of their desire to be searched before such officer."
Case Title: Chitta Biswas v. The State of West Bengal & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 172
The Calcutta High Court upheld conviction for the offence of aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) by opining that surrounding circumstances like the accused making the minor victim girl naked prove the culpable mental state of the accused. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri also rejected the argument that since nobody saw the accused touch the private part of the victim girl, it would not constitute the offence of sexual assault. "Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that nobody saw the accused touching private part of the victim and from the evidence of PW3 it is found that the accused was sitting by the side of the victim girl who was lying on the varanda of PW3 in naked condition, the accused ought to have been convicted under Section 11 of the POCSO Act for the offence of sexual harassment. I am not in a position to accept such submission made by the learned Advocate for the appellant because there was no reason for not to treat the specific acts by the appellant as the acts of sexual assault within the meaning of Section 7 of the POCSO Act", the Court observed. Opining that the sexual intent of the victim has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt, the Court further underscored, "The surrounding circumstances like the accused having taken the victim to the house of PW3 when she was not present, pulling down her pant, making her naked amply prove culpable mental state of the accused and in such a case, the court is entitled to raise statutory presumption about the culpable mental state of the accused as permitted under Section 30 of the POCSO Act. The said presumption has not been rebutted by the accused by proving that he has no such mental state. Therefore, sexual intent of the accused is established beyond any shadow of doubt."
Case Title: Anita Nigam v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 173
The Calcutta High Court recently came down heavily on Convent of Our Lady Providence Girls' High School in Kolkata for unlawfully terminating the service of an Assistant Teacher in violation of the order of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE). Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay was adjudicating upon a plea moved by the petitioner seeking the setting aside of an order terminating her service and quashing of disciplinary proceedings initiated against her. "From the action of the school it is found that the school does not care the direction of the court for exchange of affidavits and a final hearing or the decision of the Board, which is a statutory authority, in respect of suspension of the petitioner and in respect of the observation of the Board as to gross violation of notification dated 8th March, 2018, i.e., the existing Rules. The school does not care this court's order dated 01.04.2022, does not care the order of the Board dated 20.02.2017 and does not care the Board's letter dated 29.04.2019", the Court observed. Opining further that the school had 'overreached the Court' by issuing a termination order despite the matter being sub-judice, the Court underscored, "When the matter was kept pending with direction of this court for filing affidavits, the order passed by the school for termination of the petitioner during the pendency of the matter, i.e., in a sub-judice matter, in my view, is clearly an act of overreaching the court. The school never approached the court before passing such termination order, which judicial decorum and discipline demands. Ignoring the court is unforgivable. The school is of this habit, as will appear from the facts stated above, of ignoring the statutory authority, i.e., the Board."
Case Title: Soma Sinha v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 174
The Calcutta High Court imposed a stay till June 17 the recruitment process of assistant teachers for Class 9 and Class 10 in State run schools pertaining to the West Bengal State Level Selection Test (SLST). The West Bengal School Service Commission was further ordered to publish within 10 days the merit list of the State Level Selection Test, 2016 with clear break-up of marks secured in written test, academic and professional score and personality test. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay was adjudicating upon a plea moved by petitioner Soma Sinha alleging lack of transparency in the merit list. She had stated that she had cleared the written test and had also completed the first phase of the verification process. She had further submitted that although she had appeared both for the personality test and the interview, she had found her name in the waiting list. Directing the Commission to publics a breakup of marks by May 20, the Court observed, " I direct the West Bengal Central School Service Commission to publish the breakup of marks of the empanelled and waitlisted candidates against written test, academic and professional score and personality test by 20th May, 2022 and to upload the online application forms of the empanelled and waitlisted candidates and to come up with such a list with breakup of marks and to come up with preparation to demonstrate that online application forms of the empanelled and waitlisted candidates in respect of 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016 (Classes IX and X) has been uploaded." Imposing a stay on the recruitment process till June 17 to prevent further complications, the Court ordered, "The Commission is further directed not to take any further step for initiation of recruitment or selection process of State Level Selection Test for Assistant Teachers for the Classes IX and X till 17th June, 2022 as after publication of the marks it has to be checked and verified by the petitioner and all other concerned persons to see whether the panel and the waitlist is to be completely recast or not. If a recruitment process is initiated in the meantime before doing that, a further complicated situation will arise in the future recruitment process as vacancies are to be published and Rule 18 of the said Rules provide for carry forward of vacancy."
Case Title: Sanchita Kundu & Anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 175
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied on genuine transactions with suppliers whose GST registration was cancelled after the transaction. The petitioners/assessee were aggrieved by the action of the department denying the benefit of the Input Tax Credit (ITC). The ITC was denied the purchase of the goods in question from the suppliers and asked the petitioners to pay the penalty and interest under the provisions of the GST Act. The penalty and interest were demanded on the ground that the registration of the suppliers in question had already been cancelled with retrospective effect, covering the transaction period in question. The petitioner contended that the transactions were genuine and valid. The petitioners, with their due diligence, have verified the genuineness and identity of the suppliers. The names of those suppliers as registered taxable persons were available at the government portal, showing their registrations as valid and existing at the time of transactions.
23. Reassessment Order Passed Without Issuance of Section 148 Notice Is Not Valid: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Govardhan Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 176
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has ruled that the reassessment order passed without issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is not valid. The petitioner/assessee challenged the assessment order on the ground that it was passed without serving any notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is a condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The petitioner after getting the assessment order has made several correspondences asking the Assessing Officer to provide documents in support of proof of service of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer failed to provide any such document to establish that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served upon the petitioner before passing the assessment order.
Case Title: Rajinder Lohar v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 177
The Calcutta High Court has recently commuted the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to a man convicted of raping a 7 year old girl after taking into account that the convict had no criminal antecedents and that he had already suffered incarceration for about 18 years. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi opined that although in the instant case a minor victim had been raped, the accused was also a young person who was barely above 18 years of age at the time of the incident. Commuting the life sentence imposed, the Bench observed, "Although, the victim was a minor and was forcibly raped, appellant was also a young person who was barely above 18 years at the time of occurrence. He does not have criminal antecedents. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts and as he has already suffered incarceration for about 18 years, I modify the sentence imposed upon the appellant and direct that he shall suffer imprisonment for the period already undergone in place of the maximum sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him and pay the fine imposed upon him by the trial Court, in default, shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year."
Case Title: Aniruddha Prasad Singh @ Sinha v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 178
The Calcutta High Court on Friday observed that while examining an accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, the prosecution is under a mandatory obligation to give the accused an opportunity to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya also placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand wherein the Apex Court had held that the circumstances not put to an accused under section 313 of the CrPC cannot be used against him and must be excluded from considerations. "Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that the accused shall have the opportunity of personally explaining any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. In Maheshwar Tigga vs State of Jharkhand; (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 50 the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the circumstances not put to an accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him and must be excluded from considerations. The Supreme Court further went on to hold that in a criminal trial, the importance of the questions put to an accused are basic to the principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his evidence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against him and further that a probable defence raised by an accused is sufficient to rebut the accusation without the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt", the Court underscored. The Court was adjudicating upon an appeal preferred against a judgment dated December 19, 1998, wherein the appellant had been convicted under section 7 (1) (a) (ii), of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and paragraph 12 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968.
Case Title: In the matter of: Parimal Sardar@Parimal Sikdar
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 179
The Calcutta High Court has recently, in exercise of its powers under Section 439 of the CrPC, granted bail to an accused after taking into account that he suffers from complete speech and hearing impairment and that he had suffered from various physical ailments while in custody. A Bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Kesang Doma Bhutia was adjudicating upon a bail application of the petitioner who had been accused for the commission of an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for 440 days and had suffered from various ailments while in custody. Taking into consideration the physical disability of the petitioner, the Court noted further, "The petitioner admittedly suffers from 100% speech and hearing impairment. The petitioner has been in custody for 440 days and has suffered from various ailments while in custody. The petitioner has also been referred to the North Bengal Medical College for treatment." Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Rockysingh Jalindersingh Kalyani v. The State of Maharashtra wherein the Apex Court had allowed an application of bail after taking into account the physical disability of the accused. Allowing the bail application, the Court ordered, "Considering the physical condition of the petitioner and a recent order of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.176 of 2022 (Rockysingh Jalindersingh Kalyani vs. The State of Maharashtra), where the Supreme Court also took into account the physical condition of the person suffering from disability, we are inclined to allow the application for bail."
Case Title: Md Jamiruddin v. Union of India & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 180
The Calcutta High Court set aside a notification issued by the concerned authority under Section 3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (Act) for laying a Gas Pipeline below the surface in between the Barauni and Guwahati on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya was adjudicating upon a challenge against the steps taken by the concerned authority under the Act whereby a notification had been issued to acquire the right of user of the land of the petitioner for laying a Gas Pipeline below the surface in between the Barauni and Guwahati. Opining that the concerned authority is required to comply with the principle of natural justice, the Court further underscored, "On behalf of the competent authority attempt has been made to impress upon this Court that since the objection is not addressed to the competent authority the opportunity of hearing could not be granted. Such hyper technical approach on the part of the competent authority pales into insignificance keeping in view the fact that the concerned respondent authorities by issuing notification under Section 3(1) was required to acquire the right of user of the land of the petitioner, therefore, propriety demands forwarding of such objection by the respondent nos.2 & 3 to the competent authority for the sake of granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to comply with the principle of natural justice". Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned notification on the ground that the requirement of hearing as contemplated under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1962 has not been complied with.
Case Title: Sova Rani Misra v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 181
The Calcutta High Court set aside an order of acquittal in connection with a criminal case under Sections 147/380/427 of the IPC (punishment for rioting, theft in dwelling house, mischief causing damage). However, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was of the view that passing an order of conviction, after a gap of 36 years since the charges were framed, would disturb the balance of convenience and cause injustice, especially since the accused had not even been represented in the appeal. Accordingly, it remitted the matter to Trial Court for re-consideration. "Since the incident occurred and the Case was registered against the accused persons in May, 1980 and the impugned judgment is of 19th March, 1986, this Court is of the view that convicting the accused persons under the charges framed against them after a gap of 36 years would disturb the balance of convenience and result in more injustice being caused in the matter. It is not even clear whether the accused persons are still alive or available after 36 years. This information can only be provided by the local police station", the Court observed.
Case Title: Salema Bibi v. State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 182
The Calcutta High Court granted bail to an accused against whom proceedings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) had been initiated after taking into account that he had suffered torture while in custody. The Court further directed the Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad to immediately enquire into the allegations of torture against the accused and submit a detailed report in this regard on the next date of hearing. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a plea filed by the wife of the accused alleging that her husband had been a victim of custodial torture. Ordering for the release of the petitioner's husband from the Berhampore Central Correctional Home, the Court observed, "In view of the above, this Court is of the prima facie view that a certain degree of torture may have been inflicted on the husband of the petitioner. The matter requires a suitable investigation. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Azad Ali, shall be released forthwith from the custody of the Berhampore Central Correctional Home. The petitioner herself and on behalf of her husband undertakes before this Court and also on behalf of the husband, that she will report before the Judge, Special Court, N.D.P.S. Act, Berhampore, Murshidabad every Thursday at 11 a.m., commencing day after tomorrow." Directing an enquiry into the allegations of torture and extortion, the Court observed further, "The Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad, shall forthwith enquire into the allegations of torture against the petitioner's husband, and the allegation of extortion against the officer of the Lalgola P.S. submit a detailed report before this Court on or before the next day." The Court further directed the Lalgola Police Station, Murshidabad to preserve all the CCTV footage and other evidence in connection with taking into custody of the husband of the petitioner, and his detention thereafter.
Case Title: Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 183
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the recruitment of political science teachers for Class X1 and XII in the state-run schools of West Bengal. In an unprecedented move, the Court also advised Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and Governor Jagdeep Dhankar to immediately suspend the minister for education, Paresh Chandra Adhikari, from his post since his daughter, Ankita Adhikari, was appointed without even figuring in the merit list or appearing for a personality test. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay passed the direction while adjudicating upon a plea filed by an aggrieved candidate who had alleged that she had been deprived of the job despite having secured higher marks than the Minister's daughter in the recruitment examination. Directing for a CBI enquiry, the Court observed, "This court has full faith upon the police force of this city and State. All the inhabitants of West Bengal know how efficient they are and everybody will admit the efficiency of the police force and it is also the experience of people that the hands of the police forces are always tied by the persons in power. Therefore, in my view inquiry by CBI is the only option here." Opining that the CBI should not waste any time to start any enquiry and further ordering the Education Minister to appear before the CBI by 8pm today, the Court underscored, "I direct the said Paresh Chandra Adhikary to go to the CBI by 8 p.m. today so that CBI can start interrogating him in every possible manner for knowing the facts."
Case Title: Narayan Chandra Maiti v. Union of India & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 184
The Calcutta High Court directed the Union government to grant the freedom fighters pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, within 3 months to a batch of petitioners after opining that possession of personal knowledge certificates although a form of secondary evidence would be sufficient to be eligible for benefits under the scheme. In the instant case, the petitioner had applied for the freedom fighter pension along with general Non-Availability of Record Certificate (NARC) issued by the District Magistrate of Midnapore and Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sushil Kumar Dhara, an eminent freedom fighter and eligible certifier of District - Midnapore for grant of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. Justice Krishna Rao observed, "This Court is satisfied that the certificate issued by Shri Sushil Kumar Dhara would make the petitioner eligible for being granted pension under the said scheme. None has disputed the authenticity of the certificate issued by Shri Sushil Kumar Dhara in favour of the petitioner. This is one of the modes of approving the claim of being a freedom fighter envisaged by the said scheme." Further, ordering the Union government to process the pension of the petitioners within a period of 3 months the Court observed, "Accordingly, the respondent authorities i.e. the Union Government is directed to pay the petitioners, Freedom Fighter's Pension under the liberalized "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme" with effect from the date when the petitioner made an application for grant of pension within 3 (three) months from the date of communication of the copy of this order."
Case Title: Ramabatar Rajbar @ Ramawatar Nimtar Rajwar v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 185
The Calcutta High Court observed that if the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of dacoity then the charge under Section 412 of the IPC of retaining the stolen articles of dacoity fails automatically. Referring to the provision of Section 412 of the IPC, Justice Rabindranath Samanta underscored, "The language employed in the Section clearly shows that the articles an accused retains shall be related to those articles captured or received during the commission of dacoity. While the charge of dacoity fails, the charge under Section 412, IPC automatically fails..Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge under Section 412, IPC." Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court decision in K. Venkateshwar Rao alias Venkatal alias I. Rao v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, A.P wherein the Apex Court had held that while the charge of dacoity has not been proved by the prosecution, the charge under Section 412 of the IPC of retaining the stolen articles of dacoity fails automatically.
Case Title: Dr Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga and other connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 186
The Calcutta High Court upheld orders of a single bench that directed CBI to inquire into alleged irregularities in appointments of Group-C posts (non-teaching staff) in the state government-run schools in West Bengal on the purported recommendation of the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). A Bench comprising Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee and Justice Subrata Talukdar labelled the "irregularities" in the appointments made by the SCC as a "public scam" and accordingly upheld Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay's prior orders directing a CBI probe into the alleged money trail involved in the recruitment scam. "This Court also does not find that the Hon'ble Single Bench erred in appointing the CBI to investigate the public scam inasmuch as no State agency could be appointed in a scenario involving high ranking Officials, including a senior State Minister", the Court underscored. Furthermore, the Court also accepted the recommendations put forward by the Court appointed committee calling for the prosecution of senior government officials connected to the scam. Opining further that such a scam has let down a generation of teachers, the Court observed, "It is a matter of shame that such abundant facts have emerged in the records of the Hon'ble Court and from the Bag Committee, whose integrity has not been impeached, prima facie establishing the role of white collared individuals in charge of Education in letting down a generation of teachers and the taught."
Case Title: Laxmi Tunga v. State of West Bengal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 187
The Calcutta High Court refused to hear an appeal filed by West Bengal Minister Partha Chatterjee challenging an order of a single Bench that directed him to appear before the CBI in connection with the alleged irregularities in appointments of Group-C and Group-D posts (non-teaching staff) in the state government-run schools in West Bengal on the purported recommendation of the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). The single Bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay directed Mr. Chatterjee, who was the State Education Minister when the alleged appointments were made, to appear before the Central Bureau of Investigation at its office here before 6 p.m. on Wednesday. He is now the Industry, Commerce and Parliamentary Affairs Minister of the Mamata Banerjee Cabinet. "In this matter and in other matters of similar nature as to giving appointment in the post of Group – C and Group – D employees the name of the then Education Minister Mr. Partha Chatterjee has come to light. I also direct said Mr. Partha Chatterjee to attend the C.B.I. office today by 6 P.M. and C.B.I. is directed to start interrogating him and if he does not cooperate in the interrogation, C.B.I. shall have liberty to take him in custody", Justice Gangopadhyay had recorded in the impugned order. Furthermore, in the impugned order, Justice Gangopadhyay requested Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and also Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar to remove minister Partha Chatterjee from the cabinet in order to make the 'system cleaner'.
Case Title: Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 188
In an unprecedented move, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday night directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which is probing the alleged irregularities in the recruitment of teachers in West Bengal government schools, to seek assistance of central forces in securing the State's School Service Commission office. The Court also directed that no one should enter the building till 1 pm on Thursday without the leave of the Court and ensure that the CCTV footage of the office is available by Thursday noon. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay conducted a special hearing of the case from 10:40 pm onwards on Wednesday night after the incumbent SSC Chairperson Siddhartha Majumdar resigned from his post, four months after taking charge. Following the news of the Chairperson's resignation, two counsels of the petitioners met Justice Gangopadhyay and apprised him that there existed an apprehension that crucial evidence could be tampered with in the wake of the new SSC chairperson taking charge. Pursuant to the submissions, the Court ordered preservation of CCTV footage and accordingly observed, "The Secretary of the School Service Commission is directed to produce the CCTV footage before me at 12.30 a.m. tomorrow. The Secretary is to preserve all the digital information and the database if not already destroyed." The Court further ordered the deployment of Central Reserve Police Force in the office of the School Service Commission and also ordered that nobody should be permitted to enter the building till 1:00 pm on Thursday without the Court's leave. "As the matter is in the hand of the CBI and as CBI has been granted liberty to take help of the Central Reserve Police Force, I direct the petitioner to intimate CBI to take up the matter with Central Reserve Police Force immediately so that CRPF personnel can be deployed to protect the building being Acharya Sadan, Salt Lake and the CRPF personnel shall not allow anybody to enter into the said building till 1.00 p.m. tomorrow without leave of the Court. No employees including officers and no other persons shall be allowed to enter the said West Bengal School Service Commission at 11 & 11/1, Block EE, Acharya Sadan, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700091. The learned advocate of the petitioner is granted liberty to communicate, this order to CBI immediately so that Police Force is deployed by the CRPF forthwith by 2 (two) hours from the communication to CBI", the Court underscored.
Case Title: Aditya Birla Finance Ltd v. Mcleod Russel India Ltd. and Ors, AP/254/2022
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 189
The High Court of Calcutta has held that no direction can be passed to sell property to third party in Section 9 petition of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya has held that a direction to sell the subject property to an outsider who was not a party to the arbitral proceedings would result in the property going out of the girdle of the arbitration and the purpose of a Section 9 application itself would be defeated. The Court further held that a party should not resort to the remedy under Section 9 to enforce a part of the award when it has a clean and unobstructed path for enforcing the award under Section 36 of the Act. The Court observed that the object of interim protection under Section 9 of the A&C Act is the preservation of the subject matter of the arbitration. The interim relief is granted to prevent the subject matter from being wasted or dissipated to ensure the execution of the award. Therefore, the relief can only be in aid of the arbitration. A relief that would take the subject matter out of the girdle of arbitration cannot be granted by the court exercising power under Section 9 of the A&C Act. The Court held that the relief claimed by the petitioner to direct the respondent to tender the subject shares for acquisition by a third-party would result in the subject shares getting out of the girdle of the arbitration and the proposed sale would be an antithesis to the object of the interim protection of the Act.
Case Title: Priyanka Tibrewal v. State of West Bengal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 190
The Calcutta High Court observed that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has not violated an earlier order of the Court for constitution of a three member committee to look into the complaints of displaced post-poll violence victims in West Bengal by constituting a team of 11 officers to assist in ministerial work. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj had earlier sought response from the NHRC on a plea moved by the State government against the constitution of a team of 11 members by the NHRC which is contrary to the Court's order. The Court noted, "The affidavit in opposition clearly states that supporting staff of 11 officials from NHRC is for ministerial purpose and that the Committee has not delegated its essential function to inquiry to the supporting staff. The supporting staff is only for the purpose of ministerial job so as to ensure that there is no repetition of complaints, taking note of the complaints received from the complainants, verifying documents such as identity cards etc., taking photographs of damaged houses and also videography of the statement made by the complainants and to work as translator etc". Accordingly, the Court dismissed the State government's plea by observing, "In the above circumstances, we do not find that the Committee is acting beyond the order of this Court. Since, an apprehension has been expressed by the State, therefore, we make it clear that though the Committee can taken the assistance of the supporting staff for ministerial work but the essential work of inquiry into the right of the displaced persons for rehabilitation etc. will not be delegated by the Committee constituted by this Court in other person or any group of persons."
38. Technical Issues In Income Tax Portal: Calcutta High Court Gives Fresh Opportunity To Assessee
Case Title: Bhadrish Jayantilal Sheth Versus Income Tax Officer
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 191
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has directed the assessing officer to do a new assessment proceedings as taxpayers could not furnish answers to the notice due to the technical glitches in the income tax portal. The petitioner/assessee has challenged the assessment order on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice by not providing the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply to the show-cause-notice. By the show cause notice, the petitioner was asked to give his reply to the proposed draft assessment through the Department's registered e-filing account by 23:17:59 hours IST on March 30th, 2022. The assessing officer passed the assessment order on March 30th, 2022 at 15:17:08 IST. The court remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with the law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply to the aforesaid show-cause-notice. The court directed the petitioner to file the reply within seven days from the date and directed the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order by observing the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Consideration of State Government Employee
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 192
In a significant development, the Calcutta High Court on Friday upheld an order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal and accordingly directed the State government to release the Dearness Allowance and Arrear Dearness Allowance to its employees as per the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 2009 ( ROPA Rules, 2009) within a period of 3 months. A Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta ordered, "The petitioners are directed to release the Dearness Allowance and Arrear Dearness Allowance to its employees at the rate to be calculated on the basis of All India Consumer Price Index average 536(1982=100) commensurate with their pay as per the ROPA Rules, 2009 as directed by the Tribunal within three months from date." Opining further that the legal right to get Dearness Allowance as a way to sustain livelihood has been elevated as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court observed, "What we feel, apart from acquiring the enforceable legal right to get Dearness Allowance using the methodology of All India Consumer Price Index, such right of the employees to sustain their livelihood with human dignity has been fructified or elevated as fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Such right available to Government Employees who are the main workforce behind the functioning of a Government in right direction cannot be denied by the State. As observed by the Pay Commission, we are of the same view that to pay respect to the statutory rights of the Government Employees to get D.A Allowances at the rate as above, the Government must generate all its resources."
40. Forced Religious Conversion In Bengal's Malda District: Calcutta High Court Orders CBI-NIA Probe
Case Title: Smt Kalabati Mondal v. Union of India
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 193
The Calcutta High Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the National Investigation Authority (NIA) to probe an alleged case of forced conversion in West Bengal's Malda district. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a plea moved by two women who had claimed that their husbands, brothers by relation and residents of Kaliachak area of the district, were converted from Hinduism to Islam by force as part of a punishment for working for a political party which lost the last assembly election. Accordingly, the Court sought inputs from the agencies with regard to allegations of forced conversions, cross-border infiltration, threats and intimidation by accumulation and storage of huge quantities of arms and ammunition, and counterfeit currency. "Since the NIA and the CBI are the party respondents to the instant proceeding, appropriate inputs may be given from their side as regards the allegations made in the writ petition", the Court directed. Furthermore, the Superintendent of Police (SP), Malda was also asked to cooperate with the two agencies.
Case Title: Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 194
The Calcutta High Court directed the Police Commissioner of Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate to be present at the Netaji Subhash Chandra Airport, Kolkata on Thursday evening so that Minister of State for School Education Paresh Chandra Adhikari can be directly taken from the airport to the CBI office at Nizam Palace in Kolkata for questioning over the alleged illegal appointment of his daughter as a teacher in a government-aided school. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay earlier in the day on Thursday had directed the Minister to appear before the CBI at 3pm today for questioning despite vehement opposition from the Minister's counsel on the ground that the Minister is currently at Cooch Bihar and thus would take time to appear before the office of the CBI. The counsel for the Minister apprised the Court that the Minister shall be unable to attend the CBI office at 3pm today since he was in Cooch Bihar and is now flying to Calcutta though a Spice Jet flight which is scheduled to reach Calcutta today in the evening at 18:30 hours. Accordingly, Justice Gangopadhyay directed the Police Commissioner of Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate to immediately get in touch with the airport authorities so that as soon as Adhikari comes out from the flight, he can be take by the police authorities to the CBI office at Nizam Palace directly. "If Mr. Adhiakri is not found in the said flight which will start from Bagdogra at 17:00 hours it will be treated as a hoax created to save himself from the Court and the CBI", Justice Gangopadhyay further warned.
Case Title: Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 195
The Calcutta High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which is probing the alleged irregularities in the recruitment of teachers in West Bengal government schools to take possession of the data room in the head office of the West Bengal School Service Commission (SCC) at Salt Lake, Kolkata and put in their own padlock in order to avoid any tampering of crucial evidence. Justice Gangopadhyay ordered the CBI to take possession of the data room at the head office by putting their own padlock and accordingly observed, "I hope and expect that CBI will be able to take over the possession and control of data room and will keep a hawk's eye on the said important room in the head office of the school service commission namely Acharya Sadan".The Secretary of the Commission was also instructed to go back to the head office and identify the date room to the concerned CBI officer and such a process of identification was directed to be completed by 6:30 pm on Thursday. The Court further observed that if the data room is to be opened for any purpose, the Commission shall have liberty to approach the Court by disclosing the purpose for such opening. The programmer officer of the Commission namely Parna Bose along with the Secretary of the Commission was also ordered to open the door of the data room and show the concerned CBI officers the computers and other machines that are kept by 7pm on Thursday evening in order to facilitate the process of securing the room. In the meantime, the Court ordered that the deployed CRPF will continue guarding the building of the Commission until tomorrow and shall not allow any person except the Chairman of the Commission, the Secretary, Assistant Secretary and not more than 2 stenographers to access the building.
Case Title: Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 196
The Calcutta High Court on Friday ordered that the daughter of West Bengal minister of state for school education Paresh Chandra Adhikari should not be allowed to enter the concerned school premises until further orders and must also deposit the total salary received so far during her tenure as an assistant school teacher with the Registrar General of the High Court. The directions were issued while adjudicating upon a plea filed by an aggrieved candidate who had alleged that she had been deprived of the job despite having secured higher marks than the Minister's daughter in the recruitment examination. Coming down heavily on such an illegal appointment, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay ordered that the Minister's daughter namely Ankita Adhikari shall not be allowed to be treated as a teacher recommended by the West Bengal School Service Commission (SCC) and appointed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education until further orders passed by the Court. The Court further underscored that Adhikari or any other person on her behalf shall not be allowed to enter the concerned school premises and also restrained Adhikari from introducing herself as a teacher of the school recommended by the Commission until further orders. "If any such report comes to this Court that she has introduced herself as a teacher of the school, the Court will take appropriate steps against her", the Court warned further. Furthermore, the Court ordered Adhikari to deposit the total salary received by her till date during her tenure with the Registrar General of the High Court in two instalments. The first instalment was ordered to be paid by June 7, 2022 and the second instalment was ordered to be paid by July 7, 2022.
Case Title: Partha Chatterjee v Laxmi Tunga
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 197
The Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal moved by West Bengal Minister Partha Chatterjee challenging an order of a single Bench that had directed him to appear before the CBI in connection with the alleged irregularities in appointments of Group-C and Group-D posts (non-teaching staff) in the state government-run schools in West Bengal on the purported recommendation of the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). A Bench comprising Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee and Justice Subrata Talukdar observed that the issue of CBI investigation in these matters has already been discussed threadbare in a series of appeals and has been upheld previously by the Bench in its order dated May 18, 2022. Dismissing the appeal filed by the Minister, the Court on Friday observed, "First, the issues connected to the nature of the investigation have been already discussed threadbare by this Court in a series of appeals being MAT 490 of 2022 (Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha –Vs- Laxmi Tunga & Ors.) with other similar appeals by a common Judgment and Order of this Court dated 18th May, 2022. This Court therefore finds no reason to sit either in appeal or judicial review of its own Order dated 18th May, 2022 presented in the guise of a separate appeal. This appeal accordingly cannot be argued by the appellant on points already decided by the common and detailed Judgement and Order of this Court dated 18th May, 2022." During the proceedings, the counsel appearing for the Minister further sought expungement of Justice's Gangopadhyay observation in the order wherein he had requested Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and also Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar to remove minister Partha Chatterjee from the cabinet in order to make the 'system cleaner'. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court ordered the observations of Justice Gangopadhyay in this regard to be treat as an 'obiter dicta' and accordingly ruled, "However, with regard to the expression of the expectation by the Hon'ble Single Bench in its Order dated 18th May, 2022, this Court holds the same to be an obiter and hence not binding at this stage."
Case Title: Alo Rani Sarkar v. Swapan Majumdar
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 198
The Calcutta High Court rejected the election petition of TMC leader Alorani Sarkar challenging the Bangaon Dakshin Assembly result in the 2021 Assembly elections on the ground that she has dual citizenship as her name also appears in the voters' list in neighbouring Bangladesh. The Court further directed the Election Commission of India for taking necessary action in respect of the Sarkar's status in this country and accordingly directed the Registrar General of the High Court to send a copy of the order to the Election Commission. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed, "In the instant case the petitioner admitted that she acquired citizenship of Bangladesh mistakenly. However, the name of the petitioner still exists in the Electoral Roll of Bangladesh. I am in agreement with the learned advocate for the respondent that the principle of 'Dual Citizenship' is not applicable in India. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to be a citizen of India when her name appeared in the Electoral Roll of Bangladesh. The relevant date is the date of filing nomination paper by the petitioner. It is admitted from the documents filed by the petitioner that on the date of filing of the nomination paper by her she was a Bangladeshi national." Directing the Election Commission to take action, the Court further observed, "In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, a copy of this order be sent to the Election Commission of India for information and taking necessary action in respect of the petitioner's status in this country as on this date, through the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta."
Case Title: Kaniska Roy & Anr v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 199
The Calcutta High Court directed students of a university who had been found to have engaged in ragging to pay for the medical treatment of the injured students and also participate in community service by teaching school students in a bid to deter the repetition of such acts. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya came down heavily on the errant students by observing, "The petitioners have admittedly disturbed and disrupted the peaceful environment of the University. The petitioners and some others have acted like a bunch of philistines and conducted themselves in a manner which is directly contrary to what should be expected from a student. Ragging, in all its forms, is antithetical to equality and the dignity and self-respect of students, particularly when it takes on a physical and abusive form. It epitomises regressive behaviour with a perceived right to violate the bodily integrity of a fellow-student. There can be no possible excuse for acts of violence and vandalism in an academic institution." Directing the petitioners to engage in community service, the Court observed further, "The petitioners shall also do community service by teaching students in Sadaipur Prathamik Vidyalay and Subhasnagar FP School, Kokapur schools in Barasat, two days in a week for four hours each day for 12 weeks. The community service shall start from the 1st day of the last paper of 8th semester examination and continue for 12 weeks thereafter without interruption."
Case Title: New Eureka Travels Club v. South Bengal State Transport Corporation
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 200
The Calcutta High Court while adjudicating upon an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) held that it a settled law that neither an interested party can be appointed as an arbitrator nor can the said interested party appoint an arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed, ".. a sole arbitrator is required to be appointed as per the parties and under such circumstances the law is very clear that it is the Court that is to decide the sole arbitrator. The persons that have been nominated by the respondent cannot be accepted and this Court without going into the merits of the persons so nominated, should appoint an independent sole arbitrator." Reliance was also placed on a host of Supreme Court judgments in TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd, Perkins Eastman Architects v. HSCC (India) Limited and Central Organisation for Railways Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO- MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company to rule, "..it is clear that neither an interested party can be appointed as an arbitrator nor can the said interested party appoint an arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties."
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner v. Ashok Sureka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 201
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice T.S. Shivagnanam and Justice Hirnmay Bhattacharyya has held that the GST department cannot detain vehicles in the absence of a second e-way bill as the first e-way bill was valid in the interception period. The respondent/assessee submitted that the detention of the vehicle along with the goods and the demand for tax and penalty were not justified. The e-way bill, which was being carried in the vehicle transporting the goods, expired at midnight on September 8, 2019 and the goods were transported on September 9, 2019. The vehicle was intercepted at 1.30 p.m. (noon). The court held that the bona fides of the writ petitioner had to be tested on the documents, which were available on record. "The first e-way bill dated September 7th, 2019 was valid up to September 9th, 2019. Therefore, in the absence of the second e-way bill, the tax authorities at Durgapur could not have intercepted or detained the vehicle. Therefore, the explanation offered by the respondent/writ petitioner was an acceptable explanation and a case cannot be made out that there was a deliberate and willful attempt on the part of the respondent/writ petitioner to evade payment of tax so as to justify invocation of the power under Section 129 of the Act," the court while granting the relief to the assessee observed.
Case Title: Piyarul Sk v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 202
The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside an order of conviction for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC against the husband of the victim on the ground that the child witness being of extremely tender age when the incident occurred was unable to comprehend the circumstances and was also prone to tutoring. In the instant case, the deceased had suffered burn injuries at her matrimonial home and had subsequently passed away in the hospital she had been admitted to. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted from the record that the concerned trial court had relied heavily on the deposition of the child witness who had been summoned by the Court under section 311 CrPC to record a finding against the appellant that is the husband of the victim. Underscoring the need for the evidence of a child witness to be examined with utmost care, the Court observed, "When the prosecution primarily rests on the evidence of a child witness, it is the duty of the Court to examine the evidence of the said witness with utmost care and circumspection. A child of tender years is prone to prompting and tutoring. Hence, an onerous duty is cast on the Court to examine the deposition of a child witness not only on his capacity and ability to understand circumstances but also on the possibility of the witness being tutored by persons who have control and custody over him."
Case Title: The Chairperson, West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights v. Election Commission of India & Others.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 203
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by the Chairperson of the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights (WBCPCR) seeking a direction upon the Election Commission of India (ECI) to compensate each of the families of the children who have lost their lives due to Covid-19 following the announcement of the general elections in the State on February 26, 2021. A Division Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Soumen Sen dismissed the petition for being 'premature' after noting that the State Commission had not utilised its powers under Section 15 of the Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (Act) to conduct an enquiry and ascertain if the cause of death is due to any negligent conduct of the election commission. "In the instant case admittedly, there is no inquiry initiated by the State Commission in terms of Section 15 of the said Act. We could not find any plausible explanation from the writ petitioner for not exercising the said power. When a State Commission is empowered to carry on such investigation and inquiry and ascertain the cause of death it is expected that such enquiry should be conducted first before approaching a constitutional court with such findings and implementations of its recommendations if Government concerned failed to implement such recommendations. Death of any person including a child is unfortunate and undesirable whatever the reasons may be for the cause of such death. A child is a precious asset. It is only expected that if there is any violation of a child's right the Commission would without delay invoke the provisions of the Act and take such measures and steps as they are expected to take under the said Act", the Court underscored.
Case Title: Md. Firoz Ala @ Firoj Alam v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 204
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the abscondence of an accused by itself does not establish his guilt and accordingly proceeded to set aside an order of conviction for the commission of the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay was adjudicating upon an appeal preferred against an order of conviction passed against the appellant for murdering a 10 year old boy. It was alleged that the appellant had illicit relationship with Rasida, mother of the boy. It was further contended that the child had disclosed the illicit relationship to his father and accordingly appellant nursed a grudge against him. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Sk. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal to rule that it is a settled law that the abscondence of an accused by itself does not establish his guilt. "The aforesaid proposition of law wholly applies to the facts of the present case. Evidence on record shows apart from vague suspicion owing to a hunch that the appellant may have nursed grudge against the child for divulging his illicit association with her mother, no evidence was led to show that the appellant had clear access to the child soon before his death so as to complete the chain of circumstances pointing to his guilt", the Court observed.
52. Motivated To Earn Profit: Calcutta HC Dismisses Bus Operators' Plea Seeking Right To Determine Fares
Case Title: Asansol Mini Bus Association and others v. Union of India and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 205
The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed a plea moved by Bus and Minibus Operators' Associations seeking the operators' right in the matter of determination of fares in a manner proportionate to hike of the market price of fuel on the ground that such fixation of fares lies squarely within the authority of the executive. The plea filed contended that the provisions of Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act) ought to be read down to give a handle to the bus operators to have a say in the fixation of fare structures. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed that the privilege sought by the petitioners for the operators of motor vehicles in having a say in the fixation of fare structure has to be balanced with the convenience of the huge number of passengers and consignors who use the road transport network regularly for travelling and transporting goods. Opining that judicial interference is not warranted in such cases, the Court underscored, "..the domain of fixation of taxes in public transport is squarely within the authority of the executive and pertains to policy decisions of the Governments, both at the State and the Central level. Judicial interference, under normal circumstances, is not warranted, unless the very Constitutionality of the statutes are hit and/or the statues-in-question are in direct contravention of public policy or the like."
Case Title: SREI Equipment Finance Limited versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 206
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that personal hearing conducted by way of exchange of chat messages cannot be said to be an effective opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee and that it does not satisfy the test of fairness or the principles of fair play. The Bench, consisting of Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, reiterated that the moment an insolvency petition is admitted, in view of the moratorium that comes into effect under Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) there can be no institution or continuation of pending proceedings against the corporate debtor. The Court thus set aside the assessment order passed against the assessee and held that the proceedings initiated against the assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be kept in abeyance till the completion of insolvency resolution proceedings against the assessee.
Case Title: Shri Sadhan Roy v. Arvind Kumar Singh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 207
The Calcutta High Court while enumerating upon the vires of power in plenary jurisdiction observed that although Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC imposes a restriction upon parties to approach the Court for review of an order only on the grounds mentioned therein, however such a provision does not and cannot curtail the High Court's power to pass orders ex debito justitiae. A Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Kausik Chanda underscored that it has been held repeatedly by the Supreme Court that that the High Court is a court of plenary jurisdiction. Opining that the Court's inherent power to rectify a wrong cannot be restricted by legislation, the Court observed, "If the High Court feels that it has passed an erroneous order which has caused injustice to a party, in my opinion, nothing prevents the court from reconsidering the order and correcting the same by removing the error. In my opinion, not only the High Court has such power but also the solemn duty to do so. I am of the view that though O. 47 R. 1 puts a restriction on the parties to approach the court for review of an order only on the grounds mentioned therein, but, that provision does not and cannot curtail the High Court's power to pass orders ex debito justitiae. The High Court's inherent power to rectify an error, whether of fact or of law, cannot be abridged or restricted by legislation."
Case Title: Mritunjay Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 208
The Calcutta High Court has recently stayed a Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against a Captain in Merchant Shipping, who is also a Director in a company against which criminal proceedings were initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for default in payment of loan. The Court opined that such an action would curtail his right to travel abroad for livelihood. A Bench comprising Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon an appeal preferred against a Single Judge order wherein it had been held that diluting the LOC would seriously hamper and prejudice not only the pending proceedings instituted by the CBI but also the recovery process of the Bank. Setting aside the impugned order of the Single Judge and imposing a stay on the LOC, the Court observed, "This Court is of the view that the Lookout circular issued against the appellant/writ petitioner would interfere with the departure from and arrival at the airports across India, leading to curtailing the appellant's right to travel abroad for livelihood. However, as held in Chandran Ratnaswami v. K.C. Palanisamy & Ors 2013 (6) SCC 740 the appellant is directed to file an affidavit of undertaking before this Court."
Case Title: M/s One Textile v. Umesh Bharech
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 209
The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside an order acquitting an accused under Section 256 of the CrPC for a complaint registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by observing that a Magistrate cannot pass such an order merely due to the non-appearance of the complainant without forming a judicial opinion. Section 256 mandates that if the complainant does not remain present on the appointed day after the summons has been issued on the complaint and unless attendance of complainant has been dispensed with, the Magistrate shall acquit the accused. The provision further stated that if the Magistrate feels that the order of acquittal should not be passed on that date, the Magistrate has to give reasons. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed, "..acquittal of the accused on the absence of the complainant under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not automatic. The court must apply its judicial discretion to the facts and circumstances of the case where it is expedient for the court to acquit the accused under Section 256(1) of the Code." Opining that the impugned order does not contain any judicial discretion, the Court underscored, "The learned Magistrate has also not recorded any finding justifying dismissal of the case. The case was dismissed because the complainant failed to submit any application showing cause of his absence on the previous date. Absence of judicial discretion is apparent on the face of record. Because the learned Magistrate did not assign any reason in support of the requirement that it is not proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other date."
Case Title: The State of West Bengal & Ors v. Gandhi Memorial Girls' High School & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 210
The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside an order vide which a school Headmistress was instructed to vacate her post and also demoted to the post of an assistant teacher by observing that Courts must exercise self-restraint in exercise of plenary powers and not pass an order in disregard to applicable statutory Rules. A Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta observed, "The courts have imposed self-restraint in exercise of plenary powers and the judicial review in not overstepping the statutory provisions and passing an order in disregard to the statutory Rules or the Act applicable in this regard. The imposition of penalty in a disciplinary proceeding can only be achieved upon adhering the procedures and the norms set forth in the aforesaid Rules and, therefore, assuming the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority and perceiving the misconduct in ignorance of the aforesaid procedural provisions cannot with stand of the anvil of the legal jurisprudence." While enumerating upon the scope of powers vested upon a Court in the exercise of plenary jurisdiction, the Court underscored, "What can be discerned from the aforesaid observations from the aforesaid reports that the court does not embark upon the journey on a unchartered ocean of powers in an uninformed perception, what would be right and wrong for the society. The Judges must act on a well informed traditions, the procedure of law and impart justice with the rider that in proceeding on such terrain it should not cause injustice to the other."
Case Title: Ajet Ali Baidya v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 211
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that since the right to property is a valuable right guaranteed under Section Article 300A of the Constitution of India, merely on the ground of delay the State cannot deny its obligation to provide compensation for land acquisition. A Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Kausik Chanda was adjudicating upon an appeal preferred against a decision by a Single Judge bench wherein the writ petition of the appellants had been dismissed. The appellant had prayed for a direction that the concerned land acquisition case stood lapsed and thus sought a direction to be put in possession of their respective plots of land. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Bench observed, "We are, however, of the opinion that there might be some delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court, but since the right to property is a valuable right flowing from Article 300A of the Constitution of India, merely on the ground of delay the State cannot deny its obligation to compensate the petitioners."
Case Title: Shukla Mondal @ Sumi v. State of W.B. & another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 212
The Calcutta High Court has recently come to the aid of a victim of human trafficking by observing that impairing chances of a successful trial cannot be a ground to stall the repatriation of the victim to her own country from protective custody. Justice Jay Sengupta was adjudicating upon an appeal preferred against the decision of a Single judge bench order vid which the victim's application for being repatriated to her native country had been rejected on the ground that it would damage the chances of the trial in the case. Opining that success in a trial cannot be a ground to stall the repatriation of the victim, the Court underscored, "Success in the trial cannot be a ground to stall repatriation of the victim lady to her own country. Afterall, she is a victim in this case and while the accused are at large, the victim is languishing in protective custody." Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and further directed that there should be no impediment in having victim repatriated to her own country. The concerned authorities were ordered to take necessary steps in this regard. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to return to India upon carrying necessary travel documents and depose in the trial in question.
Case Title: Raju Mitra & Ors v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 213
The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld the conviction of a husband for the commission of the offence of dowry death under Section 304B of the IPC after opining that it is impossible for witnesses such as neighbours to state whether the victim housewife was tortured within the four corners of the matrimonial home or not. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted from the evidence on record that marks of injury had been found on the body off the deceased and that in addition to the ligature mark, investigating officers had found swelling on the back of the head and bruise marks on the left palm of the deceased. Acknowledging that it is very unlikely that the deceased would confide in witnesses such as neighbours about the torture that was meted out to her, the Court underscored, "These injuries show victim housewife had been subjected to physical assault immediately prior to her death probabilising the saga of torture as narrated by her relations. When a housewife is tortured within four corners of the matrimonial home, persons to whom she would ordinarily confide are her parents and close relations. It is highly unlikely she would narrate her misfortune to outsiders including neighbours. Analysing the evidence on record from this perspective, I am of the opinion evidence of parents and other relations of the victim girl with regard to torture meted out to her over further demand of money are wholly reliable. Evidence of the defence witnesses appear to be tutored. None of the witnesses were privy to the household affairs of the appellants." Thus, the Court opined that the defence witnesses are untrustworthy and that it is impossible for them to state whether victim housewife was tortured within the four corners of the matrimonial home or not.
Case Title: NBCC (India) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. A.P.O No. 11 of 2022
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 214
The Calcutta High Court held that objections regarding the non-applicability of the MSMED Act to works contract can be decided in arbitration by MSME Council. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj upheld the order of the Single Bench whereby the petitioner was referred to arbitration before the MSME Council with a direction that his objection regarding the non-applicability of the MSMED Act as the contract was a works contract would be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court observed that MSMED Act is a special legislation that has an overriding effect, therefore, the parties are bound to follow the mechanism provided under Section 18 of the Act. The Court held that objections regarding the non-applicability of MSMED Act to works contract can be decided in arbitration by MSME Council. The Court held that the Single Judge rightly rejected the objections of the appellant on the grounds that all such objections are to be raised in the arbitration before the MSME Council and the arbitral tribunal shall decide on these before entering into other questions.
Case Title: Kashinath Dey @ Kashi v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 215
The Calcutta High Court has recently modified an order issued by the concerned Magistrate in proceedings initiated under Section 110 of the CrPC by underscoring that onerous conditions cannot be put in proceedings requiring execution of bond for good behaviour. Justice Jay Sengupta was adjudicating upon a plea challenging proceedings under Section 110 of the CrPC wherein vide order dated February 16, 2022 the concerned Executive Magistrate had directed the petitioner to submit show-cause as to why he shall not be bound down for good behaviour bond under Section 110 of CrPC and should furnish an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 each with 'two reputed Gazetted Officers' as sureties for his good behaviour for such period not exceeding three years. Pursuant to the rival submissions, the Court observed, "It is a settled law that such onerous condition cannot be put either in an order granting bail or in a proceeding requiring execution of bond for good behaviour that cannot be fulfilled by the person on whom such direction is passed." Reliance was placed on the Calcutta High Court judgment in Dipu Singh vs. State of West Bengal in this regard. Opining further that the condition imposed by the concerned Executive Magistrate is onerous and thus cannot be sustained, the Court held, "More than that the condition imposed by the learned Executive Magistrate is suffers from lack of clarity. It is not clear what is the meaning by using the term "reputed Gazetted Officer", as if some Gazetted Officers may not be much repute. Therefore, the onerous condition imposed by the learned Executive Magistrate cannot be sustained."
Case Title: Sri Anish Loharuka v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 216
The Calcutta High Court while enumerating upon the scope of Section 207 of the CrPC which allows documents relied upon by the prosecution to be supplied to an accused, underscored that when there is a possibility of disclosure of identity of a minor victim of sexual offences then instead of supplying it would be expedient to allow the accused or his lawyer to inspect the said documents. Justice Jay Sengupta observed, "..it is abundantly clear that when there is a possibility of disclosure of identity of a minor victim, albeit minor at the time of commission of offence then instead of supplying, copying such documents to the accused, it would be expedient to allow the accused or his lawyer to inspect the said documents. After all, once a document is supplied to the accused, there is no means to ensure that the identity of the victim would not be disclosed by misusing of such document. However, it has also been provided that the accused would have a right to have such a document inspected by an expert of Information Technology."
Case Title: Hafija Laskar v. The State of West Bengal and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 217
The Calcutta High Court on Monday refused to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus at the instance of the petitioner by opining that the allegation of custodial torture against another accused in a different case cannot ipso facto raise presumption in the mind of the Court that custodial torture is being meted out to the petitioner as well. A Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed, "..we do not find from the materials on record any scope of presumption or apprehension of custodial torture against the petitioner. In fact, the mere incident of alleged custodial torture against another person who has been in custody, being the accused in a different case (a near relative of the petitioner, namely Md. Ali @ Subrata Byne), cannot ipso facto raise presumption in the mind of the court regarding the custodial torture of the petitioner as well."
Case Title: Susmita Saha Dutta v. Avishek Bandyopadhyay
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 218
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a petition seeking initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings against Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee for his purported derogatory remarks against the judiciary by opining that the remarks do not tantamount to a contumacious act justifying issuance of a suo motu rule of contempt. A Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee was further apprised by the petitioner that the TMC MP had intended to ridicule the judiciary thereby scandalising the Court. It was further contended that Banerjee has a public audience by virtue of his office and thus tried to malign the judiciary and undermine its dignity. However, the Bench refused to initiate contempt proceedings against Banerjee by observing, "In the present case, undoubtedly the comments uttered by the person in question may not be palatable to the general public and/or the members of the Judiciary, however, such nature of the act need not have the effect tantamounting to a contumacious act, justifying issuance of a suo motu rule of contempt."
Case Title: Yes Bank Limited v. Malati Saha
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 219
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that an intra-court appeal cannot be entertained against an order for initiation of criminal proceedings pursuant to Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. A Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana to observe, "As we understand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji that where the order in question causes initiation of a criminal proceeding which may result in punishment of the accused person by way of imprisonment or fine, or if by reason of such order, a criminal proceeding stands terminated, then such an order would be considered to have been passed by the Court in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. In such a case, Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would clearly bar an intra-court appeal."
Case Title: Sulogna Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 220
The Calcutta High Court refused to issue any interim order in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition against the holding of a public rally on a river bed by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on June 1 thereby polluting the Gandheswari river. A Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee took on record a report filed by the Executive Engineer, Bankura Irrigation Division wherein it had been submitted that that no activity was found on the river-bed and apart from levelling and dressing, no activity related to change of existing ground profile was found on the river-bed. Refusing to issue any interim order, the Court observed, "Upon scrutinising the photographs annexed to the present writ petition, it is evident that the alleged river- bed, where the rally is proposed to be held, is absolutely dry and there is no scope of adversely affecting the river water or polluting the same in any manner by virtue of holding such rally."
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.
Important Developments
Case Title: Pallabi Chatterjee and Ors v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters.
A renewed prayer for a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been made before the Calcutta High Court on Monday with regards to an incident of attempted rape that took place at Moynaguri in West Bengal last month, in light of the fact that the minor victim had succumbed to her injuries. The minor victim girl who had set herself ablaze following a threat to withdraw a police complaint regarding the rape attempt on her, succumbed to her injuries in a state-run hospital on April 25. The Court was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking a CBI probe into 5 recent rape cases that are reported in various districts of West Bengal last month. Incidents of rape have been reported to have taken place at Netra and Namkhana villages in South 24 Parganas district, at Pingla in West Midnapore district, at a village near Santiniketan in Birbhum district and at Mainaguri of Jalpaiguri district in West Bengal last month. The concerned counsel appearing for the petitioner apprised a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakasha Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that the prime accused who is purported to be a member of the ruling Trinamool Congress Party had been granted bail in the case despite the offence being cognisable and non-bailable. Taking note of the submissions, the Bench directed the counsel appearing for the petitioner to file an affidavit containing the additional materials in support of her plea within the course of the day. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed for further hearing on the next working day i.e. on May 3.
Case Title: Shaista Afreen and Others v. The State of West Bengal and Others
The Calcutta High Court took on record the latest status report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pertaining to the Hanshkhali gangrape and murder case. According to reports, a 14-year-old girl belonging to the scheduled caste community died on April 5 after she was allegedly gangraped by the son of a panchayat member owing allegiance to the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and others in West Bengal's Nadia district. She was bleeding profusely when she returned home and died later that night, according to her parents who lodged a police complaint on April 10. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj took on record the progress report filed by the CBI indicating the steps undertaken in the investigation. The Court also perused the progress report and handed it back to the CBI. Furthermore, a plea has been filed before the Court by one Anindya Sundar Das seeking transfer of the criminal case from Nadia district court to Kolkata for the sake of a free and fair trial. The concerned counsel submitted that such a transfer of the case is required considering the fact that the accused persons had been enlarged on bail. To this, the Chief Justice orally remarked that the counsel should first indicate some material to show that a free and fair trial is not possible without transferring the case from Nadia to Kolkata. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to supply legible copies of the petition to all concerned parties. Response to the plea was also ordered to be filed before the next date of hearing which is slated to take on May 20.
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) pertaining to the investigation 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 Court had earlier also transferred to the CBI the investigation the murder of local TMC leader Bhadu Sheikh that was followed by arson in Bogtui village, Rampurhat, Birbhum, that killed ten people, including two children. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Monday took on record the status report filed by the CBI which contained the steps undertaken pertaining to the investigation into the incident of arson and violence in Birbhum as well as the murder of TMC leader Bhadu Sheikh. Pertinently, an application was also filed before the Court alleging that two juvenile accused persons in the case had been granted bail in an improper manner and hence a prayer was made for the Court to take up the issue of cancellation for bail in exercise of its suo motu powers. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgment in R. Rathinam v. State in this regard. Pursuant to the submissions, the Court directed the petitioner to place on record the orders passed by the concerned Court granting bail as well as rejecting the application for cancellation of bail on the next date of hearing. The matter is slated to be heard next on May 10.
Case Title: Mousumi Roy v. West Bengal State Election Commission and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court was informed by the State Election Commission that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed before the Supreme Court against the order of the Court directing the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), New Delhi to conduct a forensic audit of the CCTV cameras that were used during the recently concluded Contai Municipality elections. The High Court vide order dated April 26 had observed that notwithstanding the constitutional bar under Article 243-ZG (b) of the Constitution of India, such a direction is required in the 'larger public interest' and to uphold democratic principles. "..we are of the opinion that not only to ascertain the compliance of earlier orders of this Court but in the larger public interest and to uphold democratic principles, it is necessary to get forensic audit of CCTV footage of Contai Municipal Election done", the Court had underscored. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Monday while adjudicating upon connected matters was informed by the counsel appearing for the State Election Commission that a SLP has been filed against the earlier order of the Bench directing for a forensic audit by CFSL, Delhi. Accordingly, an adjournment was sought. Taking into consideration the prayer sought, the Court adjourned the hearing of the connected matters to June 14 after taking into consideration that the Supreme Court is set to hear the SLP shortly.
Case Title: Arijit Majumdar v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking a probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the incident of crude bomb blast in West Bengal's Malda district last month. Five school children were reportedly injured after the crude bombs they were playing with, mistaking those for balls, exploded in Kaliachak's Gopalnagar village close to the India-Bangladesh border last month. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was apprised by the counsel for the petitioner that the five school children have been critically injured in the incident. It was further averred that the incident falls within the category of a 'scheduled offence' under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 and thus a probe by the NIA was also sought. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court directed the State government to file an affidavit-in-opposition pertaining to the plea within a period of 2 weeks. The matter is slated to be heard next on July 12.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Calcutta High Court against the decision of the West Bengal government to declare a 45-day summer vacation for schools from May 2 to June 15 in view of the prevailing heatwave conditions. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had last month recommended all educational institutions across West Bengal to take an early summer break. She had asked senior officials to communicate to schools that they should start the summer vacation from May 2. The appeal was extended to private institutions as well. Following the Chief Minister's advice, the West Bengal school education department on April 27 issued a letter to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) and the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (WBBPE), advising them to declare summer vacation from May 2 to June 15 in view of the prevailing heatwave condition in the state. The PIL filed by Bengal Primary Teachers' Association claimed that the long summer break will affect the school-going habit of students who had suffered a setback during two years of the COVID-19 pandemic when in-person classes could not be held adding that both the teachers and guardians are worried over the decision. The matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Wednesday. The counsel urged the Bench to list the matter for hearing on Thursday and further submitted that the decision of the State government had been taken without paying adherence to any weather forecasts. The Chief Justice orally remarked, "Give your mentioning slip, mention your urgency, we will consider".
A Public Interest Litigation petition has been filed in the Calcutta High Court on Thursday 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). According to reports, a 14-year-old girl belonging to the scheduled caste community died on April 5 after she was allegedly gangraped by the son of a panchayat member owing allegiance to the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and others in West Bengal's Nadia district. She was bleeding profusely when she returned home and died later that night, according to her parents who lodged a police complaint on April 10. 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 grant of compensation to the tune of Rs 1 crore to the victim's kin. The matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Thursday and an early hearing of the petition was prayed for. The Chief Justice orally remarked that the Court would duly consider the prayer.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition had been filed in the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday seeking a joint probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) into the alleged irregularities in the 2014 Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in West Bengal. TET 2014 was conducted on October 11, 2015, with over 2.3 million candidates. Several TET 2014 candidates had approached the High Court in 2019, alleging discrepancy in the recruitment process. Thereafter, the Court had cancelled the entire selection process after hearing the matter. The PIL filed by petitioner Tapas Ghosh through advocate Tarunjyoti Tiwari alleged that eligible candidates had not been selected in the examination and that only candidates who had paid money to the members of the ruling party had been recommended for section by the concerned authority. "Time to time this Hon'ble High Court passed different orders exposing the irregularities but the Department did not cause any proper investigation. The Board did not publish any transparent merit list of candidates with sole intention to cover the cloud of corruption", the plea further avers. The plea further alleged that state education minister Bratya Basu in a public meeting had stated that only members if the ruling TMC party will get jobs and accordingly he had handed out more than 300 jobs to only selectively recommended candidates.
Case Title: Sumitra Bhattacharyya (Neogi) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company (WBSEDCL) to file a report in respect of providing street light connections in the streets of villages in West Bengal in order to curb incidents of rape and molestation. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Srivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pertaining to the recent rape cases in Deganga, Matia, Ingrejbazar and Banshdroni in West Bengal. The Court had earlier asked IPS officer Damayanti Sen to oversee the probe in the rape cases. The Bench had observed that considering the nature of the incidents and the allegations made, a responsible senior lady police officer should be appointed to supervise the investigation. The Bench on Monday took on record a report filed by the WBSEDCL on providing street light connections in the streets of the villages in West Bengal, however the Bench recorded that the report only pertaining to the district of Malda. "The report in the form of affidavit by the respondent no.4 has also been placed on record in respect of providing street light connections in the streets of the villages which is stated to be one of the causes for increasing incidents of molestation and rape. The report only relates to Malda", the Court recorded in the order. The counsel for WBSEDCL further apprised the Court that street lights are provided in the villages as per the demand made by the local bodies and on payment of the requisite amount by them. Opining that inadequate street lighting in the villages is a 'larger issue', the Court directed the counsel for WBSEDCL to file a general report in this regard with respect to the entire State. "He is directed to file general report covering the entire State because it is a larger issue", the Court ordered.
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. State of West Bengal
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition has been filed in the Calcutta High Court seeking directions to ensure that State-owned public transport buses are not allowed to operate in the State without proper documentation such as certificate of registration, certificate of fitness, insurance policy and others. The PIL filed by petitioner Anindya Sundar Das also made reference to a recent incident wherein after a bus owned by the South Bengal State Transport Corporation met a disastrous fate on May 2 at Kanaidanga crossing in Memari on the NH-19 highway. The speeding bus fell into a ditch after hitting the railing of a bridge injuring seven passengers. The bus bearing registration number WB – 39B/4590 was plying on Karunamoyee (Kolkata) – Asansol route. Opining that serious prejudice has been caused to the life and safety of the passengers, the plea further stipulated, "..the respondent no. 2 being a State Transport Undertaking is under statutory obligation to operate vehicle without all valid documents by securing the safety of the passengers in the vehicle. The petitioner states that the respondent no.2 during the course of operation of the vehicle WB – 39B/4590 having operated the said vehicle without any valid documents had caused serious prejudice to the life and safety of the passengers". The petitioner further sought directions to ensure that such State-owned public transport buses display in the Board of the respective vehicles documents such as certificate of registration, certificate of fitness, insurance policies including the driving license of the driver to secure the safety of passengers.
Case Title: Amrita Pandey v. The Union of India and others
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday took on record the post-mortem examination report pertaining to the death of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) West Bengal youth leader Arjun Chowrasia who was found hanging inside a building in North Kolkata's Ghosh Bagan area. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking judicial intervention into the incident of unnatural death on allegations of foul play. Pursuant to the perusal of the post-mortem examination report, the Court noted that the finding of the report stipulated that the cause of death is due to hanging and that the ligature marks are ante-mortem. "..the cause of death to the best of our knowledge is hanging. Ligature mark is ante-mortem", the Court recorded in the order quoting the report. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the post-mortem report along with other envelopes containing the photographs, X-ray should be handed over to Advocate General S.N Mookherjee. The Court further directed that the preserved viscera should also be handed over to the concerned State investigating agency for the purpose of investigation.
Case Title: The Court on its own Motion In re: The Brutal Incident of Bogtui Village, Rampurhat, Birbhum
The Calcutta High Court reserved its order on plea seeking cancellation of bail of two juvenile persons accused in the case pertaining to 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 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is currently probing the case. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on the last date of hearing had been apprised that two juvenile accused persons in the case had been granted bail in an improper manner and hence a prayer had been made for the Court to take up the issue of cancellation for bail in exercise of its suo motu powers. On Tuesday, the counsel appearing for the CBI apprised the Court that the Juvenile Justice Board in Suri had last earlier granted bail to the two minors without calling for the case diary and without any notice to the CBI. The Court was further informed that the name of one of the accused persons who had been granted bail had been mentioned in the dying declaration of the victim. Accordingly, a prayer was made to issue notice to the concerned Juvenile Board as to how it could have passed the impugned orders granting bail without calling for the case diary pertaining to the investigation. Pursuant to the submissions, the Chief Justice orally remarked, "we will examine the issues and pass order".
Case Title: Tarunjyoti Tiwari v. Union of India
The Calcutta High Court directed the State government to raise its preliminary objection in writing to the maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking a joint probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) into the alleged irregularities in the 2014 Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in West Bengal. TET 2014 was conducted on October 11, 2015, with over 2.3 million candidates. Several TET 2014 candidates had approached the High Court in 2019, alleging discrepancy in the recruitment process. Thereafter, the Court had cancelled the entire selection process after hearing the matter. The PIL filed by petitioner Tapas Ghosh through advocate Tarunjyoti Tiwari alleged that the eligible candidates had not been selected in the examination and that only candidates who had paid money to the members of the ruling party had been recommended for section by the concerned authority. During the proceedings, Advocate General S.N Mookerjee raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj. Terming the petition to be 'completely motivated', the Advocate General remarked further, "These kind of writ petitions are not even maintainable at the face of it". Pursuant to the submissions, the Court directed the State government to raise its preliminary objection in writing so that petitioner can have adequate opportunity to respond to it. Accordingly, the Court was directed to submit its affidavit-in-opposition within a period of 2 weeks.
The Calcutta High Court pulled up the counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for not being aware of the facts in the West Bengal post-poll violence case. A Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed on Tuesday, "It is unfortunate that the petitioner is being represented by an Advocate who is unaware as to the facts of the case. He is unable to render any assistance to the Court" In the instant case, the CBI had filed applications for cancellation of bail of accused persons Ajoy Bar, Rajesh Sardar, Chiranjit Roy, Sujay Bar, Anup Mondal and Pintu Bar. The Alipore court had granted bail to the accused persons in October 2021 which was confirmed in January 2022. Thereafter, challenging this impugned order the CBI had filed an application for cancellation of bail before the High Court in April 2022.
Case Title: Dr Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga and other connected matters
A committee constituted by the Calcutta High Court on Friday submitted a report on the alleged irregularities in appointments of Group-C posts in the state government-run schools in West Bengal on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). A Division Bench had earlier set up an inquiry committee headed by Justice Ranjit Kumar Bagh, former judge of the Calcutta High Court to probe into the recruitment scam. The other members of the committee includes Asutosh Ghosh, Member of West Bengal School Service Commission, Paromita Roy, Deputy Secretary (Administration), West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and advocate Arunava Banerjee, a practicing lawyer of the High Court. The Court appointed committee apprised a Bench comprising Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee and Justice Subrata Talukdar that 381 appointments for Group-C posts in the state government-run schools in West Bengal were made illegally. Furthermore, the committee recommended criminal proceedings against four ex-state SSC officials and the incumbent president of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. It also sought disciplinary proceedings against six other former senior SSC officials.
16. Centre Notifies Appointment Of Three Additional Judges To Calcutta High Court
The Central Government has notified the appointment of three Additional Judges to the Calcutta High Court for a period of two years with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices. They are as follows- 1. Ananva Bandyopadhyay, Judicial Officer 2. Rai Chattopadhyay, Judicial Officer 3. Subhendu Samanta, Judicial Officer. "In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 224 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint (i) Ms. Ananya Bandyopadhyay, (ii) Smt. Rai Chattopadhyay and (iii) Shri Subhendu Samanta, to be Additional Judges of the Calcutta High Court, in that order of seniority, for a period of two years with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices", the notification issued by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India stated.
Case Title: Pallabi Chatterjee and Ors v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday directed IPS officer Amit P. Javalgi to enquire into allegations pertaining to fabrication of signatures of seizure witnesses pertaining to the Moynaguri sexual assault case and further granted liberty to him to change the concerned Investigating Officer if required in accordance with law. The directions were passed in a case of death by suicide by a class eight girl at Moynaguri, West Bengal following the commission of the offence of attempt to rape upon her. The minor victim girl who had set herself ablaze following a threat to withdraw a police complaint regarding a rape attempt on her, succumbed to her injuries in a state-run hospital on April 25. Consequently, a renewed prayer for a CBI probe had been made by the concerned petitioner. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakasha Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj opined that the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations pertaining to the seizure witnesses is the subject matter of trial. However, it was opined that since the allegations have come on record, the Court directed IPS officer Amit P. Javalgi to duly consider these allegations and ensure that the investigation is carried out in a fair manner.
Case Title: Priyanka Tibrewal v. State of West Bengal and Ors
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the allegation levelled by the State government that contrary to the Court's earlier order for constitution of a 3 member committee to look into the complaints of displaced post-poll violence victims in West Bengal, the NHRC had constituted a team of 11 members. Advocate General S.N Mookherjee appearing for the State government submitted before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj that although the Court vide order dated April 20, 2022, had formed a 3 member committee to enquire into the rights of displaced persons, however a communication received from the Under Secretary of the NHRC by the Chief Secretary of Government of West Bengal dated May 10, 2022, shows that a team of 11 members has been included by expanding the mandate of the committee constituted by the Court. On the contrary, the counsel appearing for the NHRC submitted that the committee constituted pursuant to the Court's order comprises of 3 members as directed and that the team of 11 officers has been formed for carrying out ministerial work as a large number of complaints have been received so far by the committee. The Court was further apprised that the Court constituted 3 member committee had itself taken such a decision to have a team of 11 officers to aid in the ministerial work as is evident from the minutes of the meeting held on May 11, 2022. Pursuant to the rival submissions, the Court ordered the counsel appearing for the NHRC to file a reply to the application filed by the State government regarding the aforementioned allegations by tomorrow i.e. May 18.
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition alleging that State-owned public transport buses are being allowed to ply without proper documentation such as certificate of registration, certificate of fitness, insurance policy and others. The PIL filed by petitioner Anindya Sundar Das had made a reference to a recent incident wherein after a bus owned by the South Bengal State Transport Corporation met a disastrous fate on May 2 at Kanaidanga crossing in Memari on the NH-19 highway. The speeding bus fell into a ditch after hitting the railing of a bridge injuring seven passengers. The bus bearing registration number WB – 39B/4590 was plying on Karunamoyee (Kolkata) – Asansol route. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the respondent authorities to file an affidavit-in-opposition within a period of 4 weeks. Furthermore, the exception to the affidavit-in-opposition was ordered to be filed within 2 weeks thereafter. https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/pil-filed-in-calcutta-hc-on-state-owned-public-transport-buses-plying-without-valid-registration-fitness-certificate-198579
The Calcutta High Court while adjudicating upon a plea moved by a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist to argue in person his appeal against the order of conviction and death sentence imposed upon him, directed that he should ordinarily access Court proceedings through video linkage from the correctional home and appear in person before the Court only on dates that he wishes to advance oral arguments. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on the last date of hearing had ordered that the convict should be kept in Presidency Correctional Home in Kolkata during the hearing of the appeal. Furthermore, the Bench had requested the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority to provide the services of a junior empanelled lawyer to interact with him for filing pleadings and advancing arguments in the matter. Directing that the convict should ordinarily appear through before the Court through video proceedings, the Court observed, "It is made clear Sk. Abdul Nayeem will ordinarily access the proceedings through video linkage from the correctional home where he is presently kept. Only on those dates Sk. Abdul Nayeem advances oral arguments, he shall be produced physically before this court under proper security arrangements."
Case Title: Pallabi Chatterjee and Ors v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court ordered IPS officer Damayanti Sen to submit a status report on the next date of hearing pertaining to the probe into the Namkhana rape case wherein a 40-year-old woman was reportedly gang-raped on April 8 by five men in West Bengal's Namkhana village and an attempt had also been made to pour kerosene inside the victim's private parts and set her ablaze. On Tuesday, the counsel appearing for the petitioner apprised the Court that the investigating authorities had not complied with the requirements enumerated under Section 164A CrPC (medical examination of victim of rape) and further submitted that although the undergarments, saree, blouse and ornaments of the victim had been seized no further step has been taken by the investigating authorities. It was further alleged that the seized blood stained garments of the rape victim had not been sent for a chemical examination. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakasha Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed IPS officer Damayanti Sen to look into the allegations and ensure that the investigation is carried out by covering all relevant aspects which need to enquired into in such offences. She was further ordered to submit a report detailing the progress of the investigation on the next date of hearing. The matter is slated to be heard next on June 20.
Case Title: Amrita Pandey v. The Union of India and others
The Calcutta High Court directed the State government to apprise the Court about the findings of the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Kolkata on the next date of hearing pertaining to the death of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) West Bengal youth leader Arjun Chowrasia who was found hanging inside a building in North Kolkata's Ghosh Bagan area. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking judicial intervention into the incident of unnatural death on allegations of foul play. On Thursday, advocate Priyanka Tibrewal appearing for the petitioner submitted that the viscera report is necessary to ascertain the nature of the crime and determine the case of death. Furthermore, Advocate General S.N Mookherjee appearing for the State apprised the Court that on May 13, the viscera sample had been received by the investigating agencies from the Command Hospital, Kolkata which was subsequently handed over to CFSL, Kolkata for the conduct of an analysis.Accordingly, the Court directed the Advocate General to apprise the Court about the report of the CFSL, Kolkata pertaining to the viscera sample on the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on June 14. Furthermore, an intervening application filed by the mother of the deceased seeking inter-alia a CBI probe into the case was also mentioned before the Bench on Thursday. Thus, the Bench directed the State government to file a response to the intervening application if required before the next date of hearing.
Case Title: Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court modified its earlier order for sealing of the office of the State's School Service Commission till 1pm on Thursday by granting liberty to the Chairman, Advisor to the Chairman, Assistant Secretary and stenographers of the Commission to enter the office without any hinderance caused by the central forces deployed there. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay in an unprecedented move had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which is probing the alleged irregularities in the recruitment of teachers in West Bengal government schools, to seek assistance of central forces in securing the State's School Service Commission office. On Thursday morning, Justice Gangopadhyay opined that he is modifying his earlier order in the 'interest of justice' by permitting the Chairman of the Commission, Advisor to the Chairman, Assistant Secretary and stenographers of the Commission to enter the office without any obstruction. The Court however underscored that nobody apart from the aforementioned officials should be allowed the enter the office premises till 1pm without the leave of the Court.
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court recused from hearing an appeal preferred by the State government against a Single Bench order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take assistance of central forces to secure the West Bengal School Service Commission (SCC) building in Kolkata over claims of evidence tampering pertaining to the case of alleged illegal recruitments in West Bengal government schools. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had passed the impugned order by conducting a special hearing of the case from 10:40 pm onwards on Wednesday night after the incumbent SSC Chairperson Siddhartha Majumdar resigned from his post, four months after taking charge. Following the news of the Chairperson's resignation, two counsels of the petitioners had met Justice Gangopadhyay on Wednesday night and had apprised him that there existed an apprehension that crucial evidence could be tampered with in the wake of the new SSC chairperson taking charge. Accordingly, the Judge had ordered for the preservation of CCTV footage and had further observed, "The Secretary of the School Service Commission is directed to produce the CCTV footage before me at 12.30 a.m. tomorrow. The Secretary is to preserve all the digital information and the database if not already destroyed." He had further directed that no one should enter the building till 1 pm on Thursday without the leave of the Court and ensure that the CCTV footage of the office is available by Thursday noon. On Thursday, a Division Bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta recused from hearing the appeals filed preferred from Justice Gangopadhyay's order on personal ground.
Case Title: Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court directed Minister of State for School Education Paresh Chandra Adhikari to appear before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by 3pm today over the alleged appointment of his daughter as a teacher in a government-aided school. The direction was issued on a petition by a candidate who had alleged that she was deprived of the job despite having secured higher marks than the minister's daughter in the recruitment examination. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay issued the direction despite vehement opposition from the Minister's counsel on the ground that the Minister is currently at Cooch Bihar and thus would take time to appear before the CBI office in Kolkata by 3pm today. "The minister is very powerful why he cannot come?", Justice Gangopadhyay orally remarked during the proceedings. Accordingly, on Thursday, Justice Gangopadhyay observed that it was granting one last opportunity to the Minister to appear before the CBI by 3pm today. "At 3pm he has to present himself before the CBI, if he fails, I will pass other order", Justice Gangopadhyay orally remarked further while addressing the Minister's counsel.
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Purba Medinipur to file a report on the alleged search conducted by police authorities at the office of BJP MLA and Leader of Opposition of West Bengal Suvendu Adhikari last Sunday. Adhikari had contended that a police team had raided his office situated in Nandigram in West Bengal's Purba Medinipur district, allegedly without any prior intimation and without a search warrant. This had prompted West Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar to seek an urgent report from the state chief secretary H K Dwivedi over an "attack by the police" on the BJP MLA's office. The counsel appearing for Adhikari submitted before Justice Rajasekhar Mantha on Thursday that a huge contingent of police personnel numbering about 100 odd had forcibly entered into the petitioner's premises under the guise of search and seizure. It was further contended that despite repeated requests, the leader of the search party had not indicated as to the case under which the petitioner's house was being searched and the purpose thereof. Pursuant to the submissions, the Court ordered, "This Court directs the Superintendent of Police, Purba Medinipur to file a report indicating the circumstances under which the petitioner's house was raided on 15th May 2022 at 04:15 pm. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Purba Medinipur should indicate the entire chain of events and facts and circumstances relating to the raid." Justice Mantha further ordered that the Court's leave should be sought if the police authorities require the participation of Adhikari in any form pertaining to the criminal case in the future.
The Central Government on Tuesday has notified the appointment of judicial officers Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury and Shampa Dutta (Paul) as Additional Judges of the Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on February 1, 2022 had reiterated the aforementioned appointments. Their names were first recommended on September 1, 2021. As per the notification, Dutt's appointment is for a period of two years while Chowdhury has been given a tenure till December 27, 2023. As on May 1, 2022, the Calcutta High Court is working at a strength of 39 as opposed to its sanctioned strength of 72.
