Abdul Hai and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Abdul Hai and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave granted to the applicants to prefer the appeal (CAN 1 of 2024 disposed of); the appeal and connected applications, including the stay prayer in CAN 2 of 2024, disposed of with no interference, since the Single Judge's order of 22nd May, 2024 stood executed by the respondent's order of 18th June, 2024 creating a fresh cause of action; aggrieved parties left at liberty to challenge respondent no.4's order before the appropriate forum; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants, undisputed residents of the locality of the writ petitioner and users of the subject pathway for ingress and egress for the last forty years, were interested parties who ought to have been impleaded as respondents in writ petition WPA 11772 of 2024, so as to warrant leave to prefer the present appeal (CAN 1 of 2024). +1 more

Court's answer

The fact that the applicants are residents of the locality of the writ petitioner being undisputed, they were interested parties and ought to have been impleaded in the writ petition; accordingly, leave was granted to the applicants to prefer the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

A fresh cause of action has arisen because the learned Single Judge's order has already been executed: upon hearing the writ petitioner, the concerned respondent has passed an order dated 18th June, 2024 disposing of the representation.

Key takeaways

No interference is called for in the present appeal in view of the fresh cause of action arising from the respondent's subsequent order of 18th June, 2024.ratio¶14
The aggrieved parties would be at liberty to challenge the order passed by respondent no.4 before the appropriate forum, if so advised and in accordance with law.obiter¶15
As the appeal and connected applications were disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations levelled therein against the respondents shall be deemed to have been denied.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bench of Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Tapabrata Chakraborty, JJ., on 10.07.2024 disposed of MAT 1162 of 2024 (Abdul Hai & ors. v. State of West Bengal & ors.) with connected applications CAN 1 and CAN 2 of 2024. The applicants, residents of the locality who had used the subject pathway for ingress and egress for forty years, sought leave to appeal against the learned Single Judge's order dated 22nd May, 2024 in WPA 11772 of 2024, whereby respondent no.4 was directed to consider and dispose of the writ petitioner's (respondent no.11) representation within two weeks and, pending disposal, not to disturb his peaceful possession of the plot or encroach upon it. Holding the applicants to be undisputed residents and hence interested parties who ought to have been impleaded in the writ petition, leave to appeal was granted. As the representation had already been considered and disposed of by the concerned respondent's order dated 18th June, 2024 upon hearing the writ petitioner — kept on record and a copy handed to counsel — a fresh cause of action arose and no interference was made in the appeal; the aggrieved parties were left at liberty to challenge respondent no.4's order before the appropriate forum. Allegations deemed denied for want of affidavits; no order as to costs.

10.07.2024 Item No.03 Court No.11 Avijit Mitra

MAT 1162 of 2024 with IA No.CAN 1 of 2024 with IA No.CAN 2 of 2024

Abdul Hai & ors. - Versus - State of West Bengal & ors.

Md. Nauroz Rahber, Mr. Muhammad Jawwad …for the applicants Mr. Chandi Charan De, Ld. A.G.P., Ms. Reshma Chatterjee …for the State respondents Mr. B.N. Ray, Ms. Shitparna Ray …for the respondent no.11

The present application being CAN 1 of 2024 has been preferred inter alia praying for leave to prefer appeal against the order dated 22^nd May, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being WPA 11772 of 2024 directing the respondent no.4 in the writ petition to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the writ petitioner/respondent no.11 herein within two weeks from the date of communication. It was further directed that pending disposal of the representation the respondent authorities shall not disturb the

2

peaceful possession of the writ petitioner in respect of the plot in question and shall not encroach upon the same in any manner whatsoever.

Mr. Rahber, learned advocate appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are the residents of the locality where the writ petitioner resides. They are using the subject pathway for ingress and egress to the main road for the last forty years. Claiming ownership over the said pathway, the writ petitioner submitted representation to restrain the State respondents from undertaking any construction work over the same. In the said conspectus, the applicants were interested parties and they ought to have been impleaded as respondents in the writ petition.

The fact that the applicants are the residents of the locality of the writ petitioner is not disputed. In view thereof, the applicants were interested parties and they ought to have been impleaded in the writ petition. Accordingly, leave is granted to the applicants to prefer the appeal.

The application being CAN 1 of 2024 is disposed of.

The applicants/appellants have also preferred an application being CAN 2 of 21024 praying for stay of operation of the order dated 22^nd May, 2024 passed in the writ petition.

3

Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.11 denies and disputes the contention of the applicants and also apprises this Court that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the representation of the said respondent was considered and disposed of by an order dated 18^th June, 2024. Let the said order, as produced, be kept on record. A copy of the said order has also been handed over to Mr. Rahber in Court today.

Since the order of the learned Single Judge has already been executed and an order dated 18^th June, 2024 has been passed by the concerned respondent upon hearing the writ petitioner, a fresh cause of action has arisen. In view thereof, no interference is called in the present appeal.

Needless to observe the aggrieved parties would be at liberty to challenge the order passed by the respondent no.4 before the appropriate forum, if so advised and in accordance with law.

It is made clear that as the appeal and the connected applications have been disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations levelled in the same against the respondents shall be deemed to have been denied.

With the above observations and directions, the appeal and the connected applications are disposed of.

4

There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee,J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)