Disposed

Union of India and Ors. v. Shri.Subrata Biswas and Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Dec 2024WP.CT/45/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against CAT's direction in a contempt proceeding arising from non-compliance with a Tribunal order on applicants' claims. The High Court directed the Tribunal to consider the tagged original application and the contempt petition analogously, to avoid multiplicity and conflicting decisions.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal requested to consider CP/9/2023 and OA/351/1420/2024 together and pass orders at earliest; writ petition disposed, no costs.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Shri.Subrata Biswas and… — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

¶2

¶3

WP.CT/45/2024

¶4

Union of India and others

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Shri Subrata Biswas and others

¶7

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr.Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi … for the petitioners

¶8

Mr. Arul Prasanth … for the respondents

¶9

December 02, 2024 [SR] Item no. 1

¶10

The Union of India and others have preferred the instant writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata on 27^th June, 2024 in CP/9/2023 (Port Blair) arising out of OA No.1133/2018/AN. The contempt application was filed by the original applicants alleging non-compliance of the order dated 7^th June, 2022 passed in OA No. 1133/2018/AN.

¶11

The applicants have challenged the order of the Ministry rejecting their claims by filing fresh original application on the ground that the said order has been passed contrary to the direction passed by the Tribunal on 7^th June, 2022.

¶12

According to the petitioners, the Ministry acted in accordance with the order passed by the Tribunal in directing the Ministry to reconsider the case of the applicants.

¶13

Learned counsel representing the original applicants submits that as the order passed by the Tribunal on 7^th June, 2022 stood confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 20^th July, 2023 in WP.CT/6/2023, accordingly, the prayer of the original applicants ought to have been allowed and there is hardly any scope to reject their prayer.

¶14

The original applicants contend that as the Tribunal directed the Ministry to reconsider the prayer of the applicants in a particular manner, the Ministry ought to have considered their prayer in the said manner and ought not to have rejected their prayer. For this reason, fresh original application has been filed before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 31^st July, 2024 passed by the Ministry.

¶15

The petitioners have assailed the order passed by the Tribunal in contempt by submitting that as the original application challenging the order of rejection dated 31^st July, 2024 is pending consideration in OA/351/1420/2024 and the original application has been tagged with the contempt application, accordingly, the learned Tribunal in the contempt proceeding ought not to have directed the Ministry to comply the same prior to adjudicating the correctness and legality of the order of rejection.

¶16

We have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties.

¶17

The Court has been made aware of the fact that the original application has been tagged with the contempt petition.

¶18

If, at this stage, the contempt petition is allowed by directing the Ministry to comply the order passed by the Tribunal on 7^th June, 2022, then the subsequent original application being OA/351/1420/2024 will be rendered infructuous. As the validity of the order passed by the Ministry is already under challenge, accordingly, the contempt petition and the original application both are required to be taken up for consideration by the Tribunal simultaneously for passing necessary order. The same is for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, for the sake of convenience and also to avoid conflicting decisions.

¶19

The learned Tribunal, is accordingly, requested to consider the original application being OA/351/1420/2024 and the contempt petition being CP/9/2023 analogously and pass necessary order at the earliest without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

¶22

( Amrita Sinha, J. )

¶23

( Uday Kumar, J. )

Union of India and Ors. v. Shri.Subrata Biswas and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Shri.Subrata Biswas and 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

The Lt.Governor and Ors. Vs Mohammed Haneef and Anr.

Smti. Fatima Bibi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri Abdul Riyaz Vs Union of India and Ors.