Mrityunjoy Chaulia Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Mrityunjoy Chaulia Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; writ petition dismissed without costs, with express preservation of the petitioner's statutory remedies.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Tribunal erred in relegating the petitioner's grievance to the B.L. & L.R.O., Egra-II through a disposal direction conditioned on the officer's 'suitability, convenience and authority vested under law', the inputs furnished in the report dated 21.08.2023, and hearing of interested persons (words to which the petitioner is expressly aggrieved). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the Misc. Case has been terminated by a final order (order dated 24.02.2024), the Court is not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's disposal, because an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner regarding the order dated 24.01.2024.

Key takeaways

The dismissal carries an explicit clarification that it shall not preclude the petitioner from availing of the statutory remedy in accordance with law.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPLRT 90 of 2024 — Mrityunjoy Chaulia v. State of West Bengal & Ors.; bench of Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, JJ.; decided 24.09.2024. The writ petition challenged the learned Tribunal's disposal (order dated 5th September, 2023) of O.A. No. 1514 of 2022 (LRTT), which directed the B.L. & L.R.O., Egra-II, District Purba Medinipur to dispose of the petitioner's representation, subject to the officer's suitability, convenience and authority vested under law, taking into account its report dated 21.08.2023, after hearing all interested persons, preferably within six months. Counsel for the petitioner contended the Tribunal erred in such relegation. Written instructions tendered during hearing disclosed that a Misc. Case (No. 607/Eg.II/2023), initiated on the representation, had proceeded with the petitioner's participation (6th June 2023 and 19th January 2024) and had been finally disposed of by an order dated 24.02.2024 — facts absent from the petition affirmed in April 2024. Finding an efficacious alternative remedy available regarding the order dated 24.01.2024, the Court declined to interfere, dismissed the petition with no order as to costs, and clarified that the dismissal shall not preclude availing of statutory remedies in accordance with law.

07 24.09.2024 Ct. No. 11 Jayanta

WPLRT 90 of 2024

Mrityunjoy Chaulia Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Bhaskar Ch. Manna

….. For the Petitioner Mr. Soumitra Bandhopadhya Ms. Pratiti Das

….. For the Respondents.

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 5^th September, 2023, passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA), being O.A. 1514 of 2022.

By that order, the OA was disposed of with following direction:-

‘We, however, dispose of this application directing the B.L. & L.R.O., Egra-II, District- Purba Medinipur to dispose of the representation, subject to his suitability, convenience and authority, vested under the law, taking into account the inputs, furnished in the report dated 21.08.2023 submitted by the B.L. & L.R.O. concerned, now placed before this Tribunal, after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the interested persons, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of communication of this order.

2

Petitioner is to make communication of this order to the B.L. & L.R.O. concerned.

With these terms, O.A. No. 1514 of 2022 (LRTT) is disposed of.’

Mr. Manna, learned advocate representing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Tribunal erred in relegating the issue to the B.L. & L.R.O. with a direction to dispose of the representation subject to suitability, convenience and, authority vested under law, taking into account the inputs furnished in the report dated 21^st August, 2023.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the use of the words “subject to his suitability, convenience and authority vested under the law, taking into account the inputs, furnished in the report dated 21^st August, 2024”.

However, during the hearing, Ms. Das, learned advocate representing for the State respondents, submits the written instructions. Let such written instructions be kept with the record.

From the written instructions and documents annexed thereto, it transpires that based on the representation submitted by the petitioner, a Misc. Case (No. 607/Eg.II/2023) was initiated by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O., and the petitioner participated in the proceedings on 6th June 2023 and 19th January 2024. Ultimately, by an order dated 24.02.2024, the Misc. case has been disposed of. Unfortunately, these facts have not been incorporated in the writ petition, despite it being affirmed in April 2024. However, since the Misc. Case has been terminated by a final order, we

3

are not inclined to interfere, as there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner regarding the order dated 24.01.2024.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.

However, it is clarified that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from availing of the statutory remedy in accordance with law.

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