Dismissed¶20

Kapil Shaw v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC7 Jan 2025FMA/947/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Forum shopping; suppression of material fact; writ petition dismissed by Single Bench; West Bengal Administrative Tribunal; service dispute; West Bengal Administrative Tribunal Act, 1997; Article 226 Constitution of India; basic structure theory; L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1125; alternative remedy; Single Bench jurisdiction denuded; Division Bench appeal after Tribunal order; regular payment of salary; FMA 947 of 2024; Kapil Shaw vs. State of West Bengal; appeal dismissed without prejudice to approaching appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the dismissal shall not prevent the appellant from approaching the appropriate forum, if available, in accordance with law. ¶20

Kapil Shaw Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the dismissal shall not prevent the appellant from approaching the appropriate forum, if available, in accordance with law.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Single Bench's findings that the writ petitioner suppressed material facts and adopted forum shopping were factually incorrect, given that the approach to the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal was disclosed in paragraph 21 of the writ petition. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The petitioner did disclose, in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, the factum of approaching the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal for regular payment of salary.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Once the Tribunal entertains the application treating the dispute as a service dispute under the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal Act, 1997, the reliefs claimed in the writ petition come within the Tribunal's domain, and it is not open to the litigant to jump such forum and approach the Court directly.

¶14

Key takeaways

On the cumulative effect of the constitution Bench judgment in L. Chandra Kumar, a litigant may approach the High Court under Article 226 only after approaching the Tribunal; the Single Bench stands denuded of jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition filed directly before it in such circumstances.ratio¶17
The Court does not find the ultimate decision taken by the Single Bench to be infirmed or illegal.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal (FMA) against a Single Bench order dismissing a writ petition on grounds of suppression of material fact and forum shopping. The Division Bench, while confirming that the appellant had in fact disclosed in paragraph 21 of the writ petition his approach to the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal for regular payment of salary, holds that once the Tribunal entertained the application treating it as a service dispute under the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal Act, 1997, the claimed reliefs fell within the Tribunal's domain and the litigant cannot 'jump' the forum to approach the Court directly. Relying on the constitution Bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1125), the Court holds that recourse under Article 226 of the Constitution lies only after approaching the Tribunal, the Single Bench being denuded of jurisdiction over directly filed writ petitions, with post-Tribunal recourse available before the Division Bench. Finding no infirmity or illegality in the Single Bench's ultimate decision, the appeal is dismissed, without prejudice to the appellant approaching the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶1

07.01.2025 sayandeep Sl. No. 38 Ct. No. 08

¶2

FMA 947 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024

¶3

Shri Kapil Shaw

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of West Bengal & ors.

¶6

Mr. Debdutta Raha Mr. Suvam Dutta

¶7

…. For the appellant

¶8

Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay Ms. Lipika Chatterjee

¶9

…. For the State

¶10

The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Court on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material fact and such litigant should not be permitted to adopt the forum shopping.

¶11

The counsel for the appellant submits that such findings recorded by the Single Bench is factually incorrect as an approach to the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal at the behest of the appellant was disclosed in the writ petition, more particularly, in paragraph 21 thereof.

¶12

We had an occasion to peruse the contents of the writ petition including paragraph 21 and find that the petitioner has disclosed the factum of approaching the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal for regular payment of the salary. The moment, the Tribunal entertained the application filed by the petitioner

¶13

¶14

treating the dispute within the ambit of the service dispute as defined in the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal Act, 1997, the reliefs claimed in the writ petition comes within the peripheral thereof. The moment, the Tribunal is set up for redressal of the specified grievance, it is not open to the litigant to jump such forum and approach the Court directly.

¶15

Even the constitution Bench of the Apex Court in

¶16

L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125 held that the approach to the Single Bench under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directly, is not permitted but since the powers exercised by the High Court under Article 226 comes within the peripheral of the basic structure theory, it cannot be taken away through the legislative fiat. However, it was held that the approach can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Division Bench after the order is passed by the Tribunal.

¶17

The cumulative effect of the said constitution Bench Judgment has conveyed the manifest intention that though the litigant can approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but after approaching the Tribunal and the Single Bench was denuded to entertain the writ petition filed directly before it.

¶18

We, thus, do not find the ultimate decision taken

¶19

by the Single Bench to be infirmed or illegal.

¶20

The appeal is, thus, dismissed.

¶21

¶22

The dismissal of the appeal shall not prevent the appellant to approach the appropriate forum, is available, in accordance with law.

¶23

(Harish Tandon, J.)

¶24