Petitioner filed a writ petition to revive a proceeding dropped by the authority as the complainant withdrew the complaint. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the proceeding ended in favor of the petitioner and no independent footing exists for interim orders merging with the final outcome.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]
WPA No. 198 of 2021
Susheel Dixit
… Petitioner
Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner & others … Respondents
Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, Advocate … for the petitioner Mr.Krishna Rao, Advocate … for the Administration Ms.Anjili Nag, Advocate … for the pvt. respondent
September 8, 2021 [GNC]
Item No. 20
The allegation in the instant writ petition is that the private dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent has taken a diverse turn when an authority is involved on the basis of complaint filed by the private respondent.
Mr. G Binnu Kumar is taking a serious exception to entertainability of the complaint filed by the private respondent and the initiation of the proceeding by the authority, as according to him, section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure debars such complaint to be entertained. It transpires in course of hearing that initially interim conditional order was passed against the petitioner, who later on appeared before the authority and raised preliminary objections on the maintainability and/or entertainability thereof.
2
Subsequently, the complainant decided not to proceed with the compliant and on the basis thereof the entire proceeding was dropped. The writ petition is filed mainly to resurrect the dropped proceeding that too at the behest of the petitioner solely on the ground that the authority lacks inherent power to entertain such proceeding.
It is intended to resurrect the dead proceeding and the proceeding which has received the natural death is sought to be resurrected by filing the instant writ petition. The proceeding ended in favour of the petitioner as the complaint filed by the private respondent was not proceeded with and the authority dropped the proceeding. Once the final order is passed in a proceeding, any interlocutory or interim order passed therein which does not have any independent footing merges with the final order. There cannot be any apprehension on the part of the petitioner in this regard and the instant writ petition appears to me to have been filed on misconception.
The writ petition thus dismissed.
(Harish Tandon, J. )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable seeking to revive a proceeding dropped by the authority after the complainant decided not to proceed with the complaint.
Susheel Dixit
The Deputy Commissioner
The private respondent
Harish Tandon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
