Sonamui Kshirodamayee Balika Vidyala (High) vs Chitta Ranjan Samanta & Ors.

CAN 473 of 2018

Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant/appellant to explain the delay in filing of the appeal. The application for condonation of delay, being CAN 473 of 2018, is accordingly allowed. MAT 47 of 2018 with CAN 475 of 2018

By consent of the parties the appeal is treated as on day''s list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th August, 2017, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 15390 (W) of 2017 (Chitta Ranjan Samanta vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors). By the said order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition taken out by Chitta Ranjan Samanta upon quashing the order dated 21st February, 2017, issued by the Pradhan of Goura Gram Panchayat, Daspur-II Panchayat Samity, District - Paschim Medinipur, with a further direction upon the Inspector-in-Charge, Daspur Police Station, Paschim Medinipur and the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat to look into the matter so that the writ petitioner can carry on construction of the dwelling house on the basis of the sanctioned plan without being disturbed by the private respondent no. 8. The private respondent no. 8, a High School, has now preferred the instant appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 16th August, 2017.

Even a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the subject-matter of challenge before the writ Court was actually not an order but a letter addressed to the respondent/writ petitioner by the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat referring to a decision arrived at on the basis of a mutual discussion which was held on 6th February, 2017; the vernacular expression used in the said letter being, "Aaposh Alochanar Siddhanta". That being the factual position, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the said letter dated 21st February, 2017, (described as an "order" in the impugned judgment and order).

It is patently obvious that there exists a private civil dispute between the appellant on one hand and the respondent/writ petitioner on the other. An issue arising out of a civil dispute, private in nature, ought not to have been brought before the writ Court at all. Even if there is a sanctioned plan held by the respondent/writ petitioner, it does not take away the effect of the decision arrived at on the basis of a mutual discussion held on 6th February, 2017, which has been clearly reflected in the letter dated 21st February, 2017, that was impugned before the learned Single Judge. On this ground alone, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

We, however, make it clear that setting aside of the impugned judgment and order shall not cause any prejudice to the rights of the parties - in any manner - which is required to be adjudicated by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.