Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 102 (CAL)

Ganesh Das v. State of West Bengal

2017-01-18

JOYMALYA BAGCHI

body2017
JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J. 1. Let affidavit-of-service and supplementary affidavit filed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Court today be kept with record. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has approached this Court for alleged inaction on the part of the police authorities in failing to take steps on a complaint dated 10.11.2016 lodged by him with the said authorities. It is also submitted that the petitioner had lodged the said compliant complaining of large scale of misappropriation of public properties entrusted with the office bearers of Singur Thana LSPA Co-operative Marketing Society Limited and had relied on to an enquiry report wherein it has been alleged that there was shortfall of large quantities of rice, wheat, atta and sugar which had been entrusted to the said Co-operative Society for distribution to its members. It is further submitted that the allegations relating to misappropriation of public properties being grave offences invoking public interest, petitioner had lodged the aforesaid complaint with the police authorities. 2. Mr. Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing for the State, submits report in the matter which is kept with record. 3. Mr. Sengupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 10 submits that his client has filed an appeal against the enquiry report wherein penalty had been imposed for alleged shortfall of food articles. 4. Criminal law may be set into motion by any individual. More so, when offences alleged therein relates to his appropriation of public properties entrusted to public servants for distribution to the needy. It (sic) petitioner is not a member of the Co-operative Society but as (sic) the local Gram Panchayat he is vitally interested in the proper functioning of the said Co-operative Society; whose, inter alia, objective is to supply food grains and other articles to its members at subsidized (sic). 5. However, I find that the enquiry report which is the foundation of the allegations against the respondent Co-operative Society has been appealed by the latter before the appropriate authority under the relevant Control Order. The said appeal is pending. It is, therefore, open to the petitioner to approach the Criminal Court in accordance with law, if so advised. 5. However, I find that the enquiry report which is the foundation of the allegations against the respondent Co-operative Society has been appealed by the latter before the appropriate authority under the relevant Control Order. The said appeal is pending. It is, therefore, open to the petitioner to approach the Criminal Court in accordance with law, if so advised. Any action instituted by the petitioner before the Criminal Court will however, be subjected to findings of the appellate authority in the pending appeal instituted by the private respondent No. 10 in accordance with law. 6. I make it clear that I do not wish to express any opinion as to the merits of the allegations. It is kept open to be decided by the appropriate authority, as aforesaid, in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ application are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.