Puja Maria Naslund Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Puja Maria Naslund Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both prayers (leave to appeal and impleadment) refused; the appellant was granted permission to withdraw this appeal and proceed afresh in accordance with law, and the certified copy of the impugned order was directed to be returned to the learned advocate for the appellant after retaining a photostat copy.

Issue for consideration

Whether the third-party appellant may be granted leave to file the appeal against the judgment and order in WPA 3792 of 2023 and, simultaneously, be added as a party to the proceedings. +1 more

Court's answer

The proposed appellant could not have filed the certified copy of the judgment and order in WPA 3792 of 2023, the petitioner in that case being a different person; merely being represented by the same power of attorney holder neither improves her position nor entitles her to use that certified copy.

Ratio / Principle

Neither of the two reliefs — leave to file the appeal and addition of the proposed appellant as a party — can be granted, since the appellant did not individually approach the learned writ court with her specific prayer.

Key takeaways

Unless and until the appellant approaches with an individual grievance through a separate writ petition praying for reliefs, she cannot in this appeal seek leave to challenge the impugned order and simultaneously canvass her own facts before the Division Bench.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Third-party appeal refused; appellant permitted to withdraw and proceed afresh. In MAT/267/2024, Puja Maria Naslund — a foreign national unconnected with the petitioner in WPA 3792 of 2023 but represented by (and herself acting as) the same power-of-attorney agent — sought via CAN/1/2024 and CAN/2/2024 (i) leave to file an appeal against the learned writ court's judgment and order and (ii) to be added as a party. The Division Bench (Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya) held that neither relief could be granted because the appellant had never individually approached the learned writ court with her specific prayer; that she could not have filed the certified copy of the WPA 3792 of 2023 judgment and order since the petitioner there was a different person, a shared power-of-attorney holder conferring no entitlement to its use; and that, absent an individual grievance pursued through a separate writ petition, she could not seek leave to challenge the impugned order while canvassing her own facts before the Division Bench. Permission was given to withdraw the appeal and proceed afresh in accordance with law, with the certified copy of the impugned order to be returned to her advocate after retaining a photostat. Decided 08.07.2024.

08.07.2024 Item No.31 gd/ssd

MAT/267/2024 PUJA MARIA NASLUND

VS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. IA NO: CAN/1/2024, CAN/2/2024

Ms. Jhuma Sen, Ms. Sneha Bera, Ms. Urmila Ray

..for the Appellant.

This appeal has been filed by a third party

who is not any way connected with the petitioner in WPA 3792 of 2023.

The only common feature appears to be the intending appellant before us is a Foreign National who is represented by a power of attorney agent and she also happened to be the power of attorney agent for the writ petitioner in WPA 3792 of 2023.

In this appeal the appellant prays for two reliefs by way of interlocutory application; one is leave to file an appeal and secondly, to add the proposed appellant as a party to the proceedings.

Both the reliefs cannot be granted since the appellant has not individually approached the learned writ court with the specific prayer as decided by her.

That apart, we have pointed out to the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the certified copy of the judgment and order in WPA 3792 of 2023 could not have been filed by the proposed

2

appellant since the petitioner in the said case was different. Merely because both were represented by the same power of attorney holder will not improve the situation and entitle the appellant to use the said certified copy.

That apart, unless and until the appellant has approached this court with an individual grievance a separate writ petition praying for certain reliefs, the question of the appellant now seeking leave to challenge the correctness of the impugned order in this appeal and simultaneously canvass her own facts would not be permissible before the Division Bench.

Therefore, the appellant is granted permission to withdraw this appeal and proceed afresh in accordance with law.

The certified copy of the impugned order shall be returned to the learned advocate for the appellant after retaining a photostat copy.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)