Sri Jayanta Bhusan Bhattacharjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri Jayanta Bhusan Bhattacharjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 12.07.2024 set aside; writ petition WPA 4205 of 2024 restored to its original file and number; Registry directed to list it before the appropriate Bench having determination on 23.02.2026; no separate notice to be issued, the order itself to be treated as sufficient notice to the parties; learned Single Judge requested to decide the matter in accordance with law; no opinion expressed on merits; urgent Photostat certified copy to be delivered on compliance of formalities.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 4205 of 2024, after the matter was preponed from the monthly list without notice to the appellant, can sustain when the appellant was prejudicially affected without an opportunity of hearing.

Court's answer

Once it is clear and admitted that, while the matter was heard upon preponement on 12.07.2024, the present appellant was not noticed for the preponement and not heard, the impugned order suffers from a procedural flaw and cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

Ratio / Principle

For that singular reason, the order dated 12.07.2024 is set aside.

Key takeaways

The writ petition, being WPA 4205 of 2024, is restored to its original file and number.ratio¶7
This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MAT 1447 of 2024 (with IA Nos. CAN 1 and CAN 2 of 2024), Sri Jayanta Bhusan Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors. — disposed of by a Bench comprising Sujoy Paul, CJ. and Partha Sarathi Sen, J. The appeal challenged the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 4205 of 2024. The writ petition had been in the monthly list; notice of the petition stood served on the appellant, but the petitioner procured a preponement without any notice or information to the appellant, and the Single Judge passed the order dated 12.07.2024 affecting the appellant prejudicially without an opportunity of hearing — a fact conceded by counsel for the writ petitioner. Holding that the impugned order suffered from a procedural flaw and could not sustain judicial scrutiny, the Court set aside the order dated 12.07.2024 for that singular reason, restored WPA 4205 of 2024 to its original file and number, directed the Registry to list it before the appropriate Bench having determination on 23.02.2026, treated its order as sufficient notice to the parties, and requested the learned Single Judge to decide the matter in accordance with law, expressly recording that no opinion was expressed on the merits.

04.02.2026 Item No.14 Ct. No.01 RP

MAT 1447 of 2024

+ IA No.CAN 1 of 2024, CAN 2 of 2024

Sri Jayanta Bhusan Bhattacharjee VS State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ms. Soumi Guha Thakurata

Ms. Raima Ganguly

…For Appellant

Mr. Sobhan Majumdher

…For Respondent No.5

PER, SUJOY PAUL, CJ.:

1. Parties are represented through their respective counsels.

2. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.

3. With consent finally heard.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/private respondent raised singular submission. She submits that she received notice in the proceeding of WPA 4205 of 2024 when the said matter was in the monthly list before the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioner got it preponed and for such preponement, no notice or information was given to the present

2

appellant/private respondent. The learned Single Judge passed the order dated 12.07.2024, which effects the present appellant prejudicially but the present appellant was not afforded an opportunity of hearing.

5. On a specific query from the Bench the learned counsel for the writ petitioner fairly submits that the notice of WPA 4205 of 2024 was indeed served but it is a fact that for preponement the present appellant was not put to notice. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits on merit that he has a very good case.

6. In our opinion, once it is clear and admitted that while hearing the matter upon preponement on 12.07.2024 the present appellant was not noticed for preponement and heard the impugned order suffers from procedural flaw and said order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Resultantly, for the aforesaid singular reason, the order dated 12.07.2024 is set aside.

7. The writ petition, being WPA 4205 of 2024, is restored to its original file and number.

3

Registry of this Court shall list WPA 4205 of 2024 before the appropriate Bench having determination on 23.02.2026. No separate notice will be required to be issued to the parties and this order shall be treated to be sufficient notice to the parties.

8. Learned Single Judge is requested to decide the matter in accordance with law. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case.

9. The appeal and the connected applications are, thus, disposed of.

10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.

[SUJOY PAUL, CJ.]

[PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.]