Disposed¶23

Hossain Mustafi and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC12 Dec 2025WPA(P)/511/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; representation dated 04.11.2025; no statutory remedy; no statutory obligation; competent authority; Trade Unions Act 1926 Section 22(3); PIL heard on admission; liberty to avail remedy; High Court of Judicature at Calcutta; WPA(P) 511 of 2025; Hossain Mustafi v. State of West Bengal; CESC Sramik Karmachari Union (INTTUC); Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao (2002) 4 SCC 638; Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa (2019) 5 SCC 119.

What did the court decide?

None beyond reservation of liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as available under the law; the prayers for mandamus and interim restraint were not entertained as no case for interference was made out. ¶23

Hossain Mustafi and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued commanding the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation dated 04.11.2025, when counsel conceded that no statutory remedy exists for preferring such representation and no statutory obligation binds the addressee authorities to decide it. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

A writ of mandamus can be issued to decide a representation/application only when there exists a remedy to prefer such representation, coupled with a corresponding obligation on the authority to decide it.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

In addition, the authority to whom such representations are preferred must be shown to be the competent authority for granting the desired relief.

¶18

Key takeaways

The petitioners failed to satisfy the three requirements (existence of a remedy, corresponding obligation to decide, and competent authority); consequently, no case was made out for interference and the PIL was disposed of with liberty to avail available remedies.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL (WPA(P) 511 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta) sought a mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P/2), invoking sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, along with interim restraint on Respondent No. 11 acting in Respondent No. 10, 'CESC Sramik Karmachari Union (INTTUC)'. At the admission-stage hearing, counsel for the petitioners conceded that no statutory remedy existed for preferring the representation and that the addressee authorities bore no statutory obligation to decide it. Relying on Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638, Bhartiya Kishan Sangh v. Union of India, (2007) 4 MPLJ 548, Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa, (2019) 5 SCC 119, and Indore Development Authority v. Sansar Publication, ILR (2019) MP 742 (DB), the Court held that mandamus can issue only where (i) a remedy to prefer the representation exists, (ii) the authority carries a corresponding obligation to decide it, and (iii) the authority is competent to grant the relief sought. The petitioners satisfied none of these counts; the PIL was disposed of, reserving liberty to avail remedies available under law. Coram: Sujoy Paul, ACJ (author); Partha Sarathi Sen, J (concurring).

¶1

Form No. J.(2)
Item No. 24
Court No. 1
PG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 12.12.2025
DELIVERED ON: 12.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
WPA(P) 511 of 2025
Hossain Mustafi & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Appearance:-
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya
Mr. Biswajit Hazra
Mr. Sahinur Rahman
Mr. Archisman Sain ………For the Petitioners
Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel
Mr. Tarak Karan …….For the State
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debanjan Mandal
Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Trivedi
Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee
Mr. S. Sarawgi
Mr. Victor Banerjee
Mr. Rajdeep Mantha
Ms. Mohima Cholera………………… For the Respondent No. 8

¶2

JUDGEMENT (ORAL):

¶3

SUJOY PAUL, ACJ:-

¶4

Heard on admission.

¶5

This PIL is filed with the following relief:

¶6

“ a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the

¶7

respondents to consider and decide the representation of the

¶8

¶9

petitioners dated 04.11. 2025 (ANNEXURE P/2 to the writ petition) in accordance with the statutory provision of sub section (3) of section 22 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 forthwith;

¶10

b) A writ in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to transmit and produce the relevant records of the case (including ANNEXURE P/1 and P/2 of this writ petition), before this Hon’ble Court;

¶11

c) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a) and (b) above; d) Order of injunction,

¶12

(i) restraining the Respondent No. 11 to act as the President and/or any post of Respondent No. 10 namely ‘CESC Sramik Karmachari Union (INTTUC)’, any manner and in any form till the disposal of the Rule;

¶13

(ii) restraining the entry of the Respondent No. 11 in every office of Respondent No. 10 any manner and in any form till the disposal of the Rule;

¶14

e) Interim order directing the Respondent No. 1 to 9 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P/2to the writ petition) forthwith;

¶15

f) Ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (d) and (e) above; g) Costs of and incidental to this Writ Petition.

¶16

On a specific query from the Bench as to whether there exists any statutory remedy pursuant to which representation dated 04.11.2025 was filed, learned counsel for petitioners fairly submitted that there is no such statutory remedy provided under any statute pursuant to which such representation (Annexure-P/2) was preferred.

¶17

In answer to another query as to whether the authorities to whom such representation was preferred are under any statutory obligation to decide it, the fair answer is again ‘no’.

¶18

This is trite that a writ of mandamus can be issued to decide a representation/application when there exists a remedy to prefer such representation, with corresponding obligation for the authority to decide it. In addition, the authority to whom these representations are preferred, must be shown to be competent authority for granting the desired relief

¶19

¶20

¶21

(See: Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao, 2002 (4) SCC 638; Bhartiya Kishan Sangh District Bhind vs. Union of India, 2007 (4) MPLJ 548; Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai v. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa, 2019 (5) SCC 119; Indore Development Authority & Anr. vs. Sansar Publication Pvt. Ltd., ILR 2019 MP 742 (DB)).

¶22

The petitioners could not satisfy all three counts and therefore, no case is made out for interference.

¶23

The PIL is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as available to him under the law.

¶24

(SUJOY PAUL, ACJ.)
I agree.

¶25

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

¶26

Hossain Mustafi and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hossain Mustafi and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brij Kishore Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hyder Ali Mondal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Narendra Narayan Talukdar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

The Commercial Tax Officer & Anr. Vs Union of India

State of W.B. & Ors. Vs Sushil Kumar Rahut

The Union of India & Ors. Vs Birendra Nath Singh