The High Court in West Bengal disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for the speedy disposal of an original application pending before a Tribunal. The Court held that no interference was called for as the Tribunal had fixed a returnable date and there was no justification for immediate directions.
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.
16.07.2024 Item No.30 Court No.11 Avijit Mitra
WPLRT 88 of 2024
In re: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
Provat Kumar Sanyal & ors. - versus - The State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Debasis Nandi …for the petitioners Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Mr. Abu Siddique Mallik ….for the State respondents Mr. Sankar Halder ….for the respondent no.7 Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Sajal Kanti Bhattacharyya, Mr. Sarthak Burman
….for the respondent no.8
Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record.
This writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for expeditious disposal of the original application (in short, OA), being OA 670 of 2023 (LRTT). By the order dated 15th March, 2024, the learned Tribunal directed the applicants/petitioners herein to submit the latest status of the concerned title suit by way of a supplementary affidavit and also directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Nawadwip, Nadia to submit the status report of the land in question through the learned Government representative on the next date fixed for hearing on 7th January, 2025.
Mr. Nandi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are languishing
2
before the learned Tribunal since the date of filing of the OA in the year 2023. On 15th March, 2024, the returnable date has been fixed about ten months thereafter on 7th January, 2025 and as such there is no possibility towards early disposal of the OA. In the said conspectus, he prays for issuance of necessary direction upon the learned Tribunal towards expeditious disposal of the OA within three months.
Mr. Galib, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the State respondents. Mr. Halder and Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocates appear on behalf of the respondent nos.7 and 8 respectively.
We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.
The order dated 15th March, 2024 reveals that for final disposal of the OA, the learned Tribunal has called for status reports from the petitioners and the respondent no.4 and has fixed a returnable date. This Court cannot issue any direction for speedy disposal unless there is a justification or acceptable reason for issuing any such directions. In view thereof, no interference is called for in the present writ petition.
Needless to observe, the learned Tribunal would make a sincere endeavour towards final disposal of the OA on the returnable date or as expeditiously as possible
3
thereafter, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
With the above observations, the writ petition being WPLRT 88 of 2024 is disposed of.
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.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court is justified in issuing directions for speedy disposal of an original application pending before the Tribunal.
Whether the court can interfere when there is a justified reason for a future hearing date without immediate disposal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Provat Kumar Sanyal
The State of West Bengal
Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
