Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: May 9 To May 15, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 163 To 176] 

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

Orders/Judgments 

1. Cannot Turn Back On Obligations On Pretext Of Mistake: Calcutta HC Orders Payment Of Compensation For Mistakenly Increasing Intending Bid By 10 Times

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.

2. Order Passed By Court Under Section 36 Of A&C Act Is An Interim Order, Can Be Modified On Grounds Of Financial Hardship: Calcutta High Court

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.

3. 'Lawyer Not Criminally Liable For Improper Legal Advice': Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Lawyer

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.

4. Black Marketers Taking Advantage Of Differences Between State And Centre: Calcutta HC Directs Jute Commissioner To Review Rate Of Raw Jute To Curb Price Hike

Case Title: Indian Jute Mills Association and Anr v. Union of India and Ors

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 166

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday 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.

5. Writ Court Cannot Impose Penalty Not Contemplated In Statute In Exercise Of Plenary Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court

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.

6. Medical Evidence Of Nature Of Injury Prevails Over Victim's Ocular Evidence: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Conviction U/S 324 IPC

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.

7. 'No Evidence That Victim Was Enticed, She Was Fully Aware Of Consequences': Calcutta HC Sets Aside Conviction For Kidnapping Minor

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.

8. Birbhum Massacre| Avail Remedy Under S.102 Of Juvenile Justice Act: Calcutta HC Dismisses CBI's Plea Seeking Cancellation Of Bail Of Two Juvenile Accused

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.

9. Gazetted Officer Who Is Part Of Raid Is Not 'Independent', Personal Search Conducted By Him Does Not Constitute Compliance Of S.50 NDPS Act: Calcutta HC

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."

10. Making Victim Naked Proves Culpable Mental State, Touching Private Part Not Required: Calcutta HC Upholds Conviction For Aggravated Sexual Assault In POCSO Case

Case Title: Chitta Biswas v. The State of West Bengal & Anr

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 172

The Calcutta High Court on Friday 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."

11. 'Overreached The Court': Calcutta HC Sets Aside Termination Order Of School Teacher, Orders WBBSE To Withdraw School's Affiliation

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."

12. SLST Recruitment Scam: Calcutta HC Orders WBSSC To Publish Merit List With Marks Break-Up Within 10 Days, Stays Recruitment Process Till June 17

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."

13. Genuine Transactions With Suppliers Whose GST Registration Cancelled: Calcutta High Court Allows GST ITC To Assessee

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.

14. 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.

Important Developments 

1. Death Of BJP Youth Wing Leader: Calcutta HC Takes On Record Post-Mortem Report Which Indicates Death By Hanging, Probe To Be Continued By State Police

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.

2. Birbhum Massacre| Calcutta HC Reserves Order On Plea Seeking Cancellation Of Bail Of Two Juvenile Accused Allegedly Granted Bail Without Inspecting Case Diary

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".

3. 'Completely Motivated': WB Gov Objects To Maintainability Of PIL Before HC Seeking Joint Probe By CBI & ED Into Alleged Irregularities In TET 2014

Case Title: Tarunjyoti Tiwari v. Union of India

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday 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.

4. WB Post Poll Violence: Calcutta High Court Raps CBI Counsel For Being Unaware Of Facts, Failing To Render Any Assistance

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday 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.

5. SSC Recruitment Scam: Calcutta High Court Appointed Committee Seeks Action Against State Govt Officials, Judgment On May 18

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.

6. 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.