Disposed

Soumendra Chatterjee & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Calcutta HC21 Dec 2021WPA/3274/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition alleging misappropriation of public money by Gram Panchayat officials. Court directed the District Magistrate to consider the petitioners' representation dated July 5, 2017 and take appropriate action within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no.2/District Magistrate to consider representation dated 5.7.2017 and take action within three months.

Soumendra Chatterjee & Ors. Vs State of West… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

10 21.12.2021

¶2

gd/ssd

¶3

WPA 3274 OF 2018 SRI SOUMENDRA CHATTERJEE & ORS. VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. (Through Video Conference) Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee ..for the State

¶4

No one is present for the petitioners.

¶5

Record perused.

¶6

The petitioners are the residents of Village Makardah and Kantalia Naskarpara under Makardah No.1 Gram Panchayat in the District Howrah. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that the respondent nos.7, 8 and 9 i.e. Upa-Prodhan and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat along with the respondent no.9 had defalcated and misused the public money. It is alleged that the acting Prodhan has engaged her elder son as supplier of food and entertainment materials and thereby indulged into malpractice and huge money has been misappropriated as is reflected from the master rolls. There is also an allegation in respect of collection of excess money from the inhabitants of the Panchayat for giving water and sanitation.

¶7

The petition was filed in the year 2018 and no one is present on behalf of the petitioners to prosecute it.

¶8

The record reflects that certain proceedings were already initiated by the District Magistrate and,

¶9

¶10

therefore, the petitioners had filed the representation dated 5^th of July, 2017 before the District Magistrate alleging inaction in this regard.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that there is no objection in considering the petitioners’ representation within a time bound period.

¶12

Hence, we deem it proper to dispose of the petition directing the respondent no.2/District Magistrate, Howrah to duly consider the representation dated 5^th of July, 2017 in accordance with law and take an appropriate action in respect of the grievance raised by the petitioners.

¶13

This exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶14

Counsel for the State is directed to forward a copy of this order along with a copy of the petition to respondent no.2. He is permitted to obtain a photocopy of the petition along with the enclosures from the office at his own cost.

¶15

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶16

(Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.)

¶17

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)

¶18

¶19

¶20

Soumendra Chatterjee & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soumendra Chatterjee & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshya Kumar Sarangi Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Sheikh Mujibor & Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal & Ors.

Kanishk Sinha & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Fazle Rabby Hazari Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Anup Kumar Tikadar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Safiur Rahaman Mondal & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.