AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The challenge is made to an order dated 18th April 2018 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haldia under Section 4 of the West Bengal Public Land
(Eviction and Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1962. It is submitted by Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
that the order impugned cannot be legally sustained having passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
According to him there is no fetter on the part of the Court to entertain the writ petition despite existence of alternative remedy if the order per se
violates the principles of natural justice. It is pointed out by him that a reply to the statement given by his client was filed on the date when the
impugned order was passed without serving a copy thereof and, therefore, the order cannot be sustained.
Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the said document has no relevance to the core issue
involved in the said proceedings and the authorities never proceeded on the basis thereof and, therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. In
other words, Mr. Bose submits that mere non adherence of principles of natural justice cannot be a ground for invocation of the provisions contained
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless a prejudice is shown by the petitioner.
Apparently a document is filed on the date of the impugned order and it is not in dispute that the copy thereof was not served upon the petitioner.
There is obviously a reflection of the statement contained in the said document which according to Mr. Bose is not correct as the authorities have
recorded the same on the basis of an oral submission made by the parties as well as the stand taken in the written statement filed at an earlier point of
time.
Apart from the same, this Court finds the challenge is also rested upon the fact that there was infact no hearing held on the said date rather the matter
was adjourned to some other day which itself is a ground to set aside the said order. The aforesaid contention is seriously disputed by the contesting
respondents as according to him the arguments were advanced which would be evident from the events happened before the said authority and
recorded in the impugned order.
Since both the parties are not ad idem on above issues, this Court feels that it would be proper to consider the writ petition upon exchange of
affidavits. Furthermore, this Court finds that a serious allegation as observed hereinabove is leveled against the respondent authorities in relation to a
conduct in the proceedings of the statutory authority and serious consequence shall follow in absence of any protection.
This Court restrains the respondents from taking any step or further steps or proceedings further on the basis of the impugned order till the end of July
2018 or until further order whichever is earlier. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by the respondents within two weeks after reopening of this Court
following summer vacation. Reply thereto, if any, shall be filed within a week therefrom. The writ petition shall appear three weeks after reopening of
this Court following summer vacation as ‘For Orders’ in the supplementary list.