Disposed

Bhupen Kalita v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Mar 2024WP(C)/1279/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a letter from the Senior Postmaster seeking cancellation of his SAS agent licence due to allegations of fraudulent transactions. The court held no enforceable right was violated as no action was yet taken by the Deputy Commissioner, who holds licensing power, and noted the petitioner failed to approach him first. The petitioner was given liberty to file a representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner via representation; petition disposed.

Bhupen Kalita Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010039272024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1279/2024

¶5

BHUPEN KALITA

¶6

S/O LATE ARUN KALITA, A R/O VILL- HAHDIA, P.O.-UJANKURI, P.S.-HAJO, PIN-781102, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM TRANSFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM

¶11

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP PIN-781031

¶12

4:THE DIRECTOR OF SMALL SAVINGS ASSAM KAR BHAWAN COMPLEX GANESHGURI GUWAHATI PIN-781006

¶13

5:THE SENIOR PLANNING OFFICER T AND D KAMRUP AMINGAON

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

PIN-781031

¶16

6:SENIOR POST MASTER GUWHATI GPO MEGHDOOT BHAWAN GUWAHATI-78100

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

13.03.2024

¶22

Heard Mr. S.D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 1 & 6 and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶23

The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the letter dated 09.01.2024 issued by the Senior Postmaster, Guwahati requesting the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon, Guwahati to cancel the petitioner’s SAS Agent licence due to his involvement in some alleged fraudulent and suspicious transaction in the Guwahati Post Office (GPO).

¶24

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has been working as an SAS Agent since 1997. However, due to an unfounded allegation that has been levelled against the petitioner that he has been dealing in the accounts of dead persons, the petitioner is being sought to be removed as an SAS agent licencee. He also submits that an enquiry has been conducted through the Panbazar Police Station, vide Panbazar P.S. G.D.E. No.609/2023 dated

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

20.07.2023. However, the report submitted to the respondent No.6 on 01.02.2024 by the Panbazar Police Station states that there is no wrongful gain or wrongful loss due to the transactions apparently made against dead persons. Despite the above, the respondent No.6, vide the letter dated 09.01.2024, has requested the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon, Guwahti to cancel and terminate the SAS Agent licence of the petitioner.

¶27

Ms. A. Gayan learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 1 and 6 submits that as per her instructions, the petitioner was found to have concealed information regarding the demise of the depositor Late Bina Devi and ensured the opening of the joint SB/TD accounts in the name of the deceased Bina Devi and Ms. Jahnabi Sarma Pujari, who is the daughter of Late Bina Devi.

¶28

Mr. S.S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that he has not received any instructions as on date.

¶29

On considering the case of the petitioner, it is seen that no enforceable right of the petitioner has been violated as on date, inasmuch as, the request made by the Senior Postmaster, Guwahati may or may not have any effect on the decision to be made by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon, Guwahati, if at all any decision is taken. The Senior Postmaster, Guwahati has got no connection with the petitioner, as the SAS Agent licence has been given to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner and not the Senior Postmaster, Guwahati. The placement of the petitioner in the General Post Office, Guwahati is also made by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶30

The petitioner, though apprehending that the impugned order issued by

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

the Senior Postmaster, Guwahati, would result in the Deputy Commissioner taking action upon the petitioner, he has not submitted any representation to the Deputy Commissioner in this regard. As on date, no action has been taken upon the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner only apprehends that the same would be taken and has instantly approached this Court, without first submitting an application to the concerned authority with regard to his grievance. The above being said, the livelihood of the petitioner appears to be at stake and any action that would affect the petitioner’s livelihood or causes prejudice to him, should be taken without violating the principles of natural justice.

¶33

As the writ petitioner has not taken recourse to the alternative remedy available and as on date, no enforceable right of the petitioner has been violated by any person/authority, the petitioner is given the liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner, by way of a representation with his grievance and/or apprehension. Any decision taken thereafter, should be made by the Deputy Commissioner, only after examining the petitioner’s representation, if any.

¶34

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Bhupen Kalita v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupen Kalita v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goalpara Auto-Tempo Owners' Association Ngo and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Fokar Uddin Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Aftab Hussain Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

M/S Meghalaya Engineers and Agencies Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Mridul Kumar Ray Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Nur Mohammad @ Mohammad Ali Vs the State of Assam and 14 Ors.