Bindu Bhusan Das and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bindu Bhusan Das and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Maintainability of the statutory appeal preferred by the writ petitioners, which was filed on the basis of a reply furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and is alleged not to conform to Rule 29, WBLR Rules, 1965. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

To decide the issue of maintainability of the appeal, the learned Tribunal had called for the records from the appellate authority and fixed the matter for further consideration on 29th January, 2025.

Key takeaways

The interim stay of the appellate authority's order was passed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings till the returnable date.ratio¶19
No infirmity was found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in the present writ petition.ratio¶22
Direction to the learned Tribunal to dispose of the OA as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition dismissed — Tribunal's interim order upholding procedural course on maintainability question. The petitioners (respondent nos. 6 to 9 in OA 894 of 2024 (LRTT)) challenged the Tribunal's order dated 9th May, 2024, whereby the Tribunal, while yet to decide the maintainability of their statutory appeal (Appeal Case No. 1744 of 2023, appealed against the appellate authority's order of 30th January, 2024 remanding the matter to BL&LRO, Sainthia, Birbhum), called for the appellate records, fixed consideration for 29th January, 2025, and stayed the appellate order till the returnable date. Counsel contended the appeal was not maintainable, being founded on a reply under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and not conforming to Rule 29, WBLR Rules, 1965, and that the Tribunal stayed the appellate order without deciding maintainability or recording reasons. Finding that the Tribunal had called the records precisely to decide maintainability and had stayed the appellate order to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, the Court held there was no infirmity warranting interference, dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, and directed expeditious disposal of the OA without unnecessary adjournments.

4

08.01.2025 Ct. No. 11 rrc

WPLRT 165 of 2024

(Bindu Bhusan Das & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)

Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury Mr. Nabankur Paul Ms. Titoprita Ghosh

…. For the petitioners Sk. Md. Galib, Sr. Govt. Adv. Ms. Priyambada Singh

….. For the State respondents

Mr. Animesh Mukherhjee Md. Abdul Alim

…. For the private respondents

Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record.

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 9^th May, 2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in the Original Application (in short, OA), being OA 894 of 2024 (LRTT) in which the original applicants/respondent nos.6 and 7 herein challenged an order dated 30^th January, 2024 passed by the appellate authority in the statutory appeal being Appeal Case No. 1744 of 2023 disposing of the said appeal and sending the matter back to the BL&LRO, Sainthia, Birbhum on remand for afresh proceeding, as per law.

By the impugned order dated 9^th May, 2024, the learned Tribunal upon hearing the parties called for the case records from the appellate authority and fixed the matter for further consideration on 29^th January, 2025 and passed an interim order staying the operation of the appellate authority order dated 30^th January, 2024 till the next date fixed.

2

Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners/respondent nos.6 to 9 in the OA submits that the statutory appeal as preferred by the petitioners herein is not maintainable since the same has been filed on the basis of a reply furnished in response to an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the same is not in conformity with Rule 29/WBLR Rules, 1965.

He submits that without deciding the said issue of maintainability, the learned Tribunal passed an interim order staying the operation of the order passed in the statutory appeal without disclosing any reason. Such infirmity warrants interference of this Court.

Mr. Galib, learned senior standing counsel enters appearance on behalf of the State respondents.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the private respondents and disputes the contention of Mr. Chowdhury.

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

From the order impugned in the present writ petition, it appears that to decide the issue as regards maintainability of the appeal, the learned Tribunal had called for the records from the appellate authority and fixed the matter for further consideration on 29^th January, 2025 and to prevent multiplicipity of proceedings, the learned Tribunal has stayed the

3

operation of the order passed by the appellate authority till the returnable date.

We do not find any infirmity in order impugned warranting interference of this Court in the present writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Needless to observe, the learned Tribunal shall dispose of the OA as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

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