Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 365 (CAL)

BISWANANDA BANERJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2004-06-07

ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE

body2004
( 1 ) THE judgment of the Court was as follows : A writ application was filed in this Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 8. 11. 2000 as no one appeared when the matter was called on. It escaped the notice of the learned Judge that on that day West bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal was functioning and by a statutory provision, the jurisdiction of this Court stood transferred to the Tribunal and the matter was also stood transferred though actually records were still lying in this Court. ( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY when the matter was transferred to the Tribunal by order dated 4th August, 2003, it was recorded by the Tribunal that the application is not maintainable and, therefore, it was dismissed in view of the earlier dismissal recorded on 8. 11. 2000 by a learned Single Judge of this court. ( 3 ) THE petitioner made an application before this Court for recalling of the order dated 8. 11. 2000 and restoration of the writ petition which was transferred by the same learned Single Judge by his order dated 23 August, 2003. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. The contention of the petitioner is that the order dated 8. 11. 2000 is nonest as this Court had no jurisdiction over the matter on that date. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the respondent though raised objection, but could not show anything to demonstrate that this Court was having determination and/or jurisdiction over the matter on 8. 11. 2000. ( 5 ) IN the above view of the matter, as we are of the opinion that dismissal order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 8. 11. 2000 without noticing that the matter already stood transferred and as a consequence of the statutory provision, this Court was not having jurisdiction over the matter on that day. The dismissal order being without jurisdiction was really nonest in the eye of law. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, we quash the impugned order. We direct the Tribunal to decide the proceeding being T. A. No. 136 of 2002 arising out of C. O. No. 18136 (W) 1994 in accordance with law expeditiously. The dismissal order being without jurisdiction was really nonest in the eye of law. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, we quash the impugned order. We direct the Tribunal to decide the proceeding being T. A. No. 136 of 2002 arising out of C. O. No. 18136 (W) 1994 in accordance with law expeditiously. ( 7 ) THE petitioner is granted liberty to move a fresh writ application in respect of T. A. No. 135 of 2002 arising out of C. O. No. 4323 (W) of 1991 and the certified copy relating thereto filed in the present application may be returned to the petitioner. Urgent xerox certifieo copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied on usual undertaking. Chakrabarti, J. Bose, J. S. K. G.