Writ petition challenging notifications issued by respondent authorities was dismissed as not maintainable. The Court held it ought not to interfere since the civil court was in seisin of the matter and had been passing orders on the allegations.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Daily List 10 Bpg.
December 10, 2020
In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Via Video Conference)
W.P.A. No. 10079 of 2020
Kanishk Sinha
Versus
The Union of India and others
Mr. Kanishk Sinha. petitioner-in-person.
Mr. Y. J. Dastoor, Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee. …for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
The grievance of the petitioner is that several notifications have been issued by the respondentauthorities in an apparent violation of an order of injunction dated February 24, 2020 passed in Title Suit No.27 of 2018 pending before the Additional District Judge, 13th Court at Alipore. The petitioner, appearing in person with the leave of Court, submits that the regular presiding Judge of the said court was not sitting, for which the present writ petition had to be filed. It is further submitted that, by a previous order dated June 23, 2017, a co-ordinate Bench, while disposing of W.P. No.23967(W) of 2016, had set aside similar notifications and, as such, the action of the
2
respondent-authorities in issuing the impugned notifications is patently illegal and ought to be set aside by this Court.
Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the excuse of the petitioner for approaching this Court is negated in view of the fact that, after having filed the writ petition, the petitioner has already obtained orders from the Additional District Judge at Alipore in respect of alleged violation of its injunction order. Moreover, it is submitted that this Court ought not to interfere in the matter in view of the civil court being in seisin of the dispute.
Upon hearing both sides, it is evident that this Court ought not to pass any direction in the matter, since the civil court is in seisin of the matter at the instance of the petitioner himself and has been passing orders in respect of the allegations made in the writ petition.
At this juncture, during delivery of order, the petitioner prays for withdrawing the present writ petition and to approach the civil court. However, it is too late in the day to make such prayer, after the Court has expressed its opinion by partially dictating the order. Such practice is, as such, deprecated.
In any event, there is no occasion for the Court to enter into the merits of the contentions of the petitioner as taken in the writ petition. Hence, there is
3
no scope of the contentions of the petitioner being affected in any manner in so far as the suit, pending before the civil court, is concerned.
Accordingly, W.P.A. 10079 of 2020 is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to proceed before the concerned court with the grievances ventilated herein.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court ought to interfere in a matter where the civil court is already in seisin of the dispute.
Whether the petitioner's excuse for approaching this Court (absence of regular judge) negates writ maintainability when orders were already obtained from the civil court.
Kanishk Sinha
The Union of India
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
