Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 774 (CAL)

Dinesh Agarwal v. State Of West Bengal

2018-11-13

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2018
JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. The subject matter of challenge in the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an order dated 31st August, 2018, passed by the First Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal whereby the case has been directed to be listed under the heading, "Motion" on 29th August, 2019. 2. Perusing the impugned order it appears that the learned Tribunal was not satisfied to pass any interim order at that stage for the purpose of setting aside the impugned order dated 28th April, 2017. However, the learned Tribunal was pleased to pass an interim order directing the concerned respondent authorities to supply certified copies of the documents as mentioned in paragraph 8(i) of the original application to the writ petitioner provided an application was made in a proper manner by the writ petitioner before the concerned respondent authority within such time-frame as specified in the impugned order. 3. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - in the facts of the instant case - needs to confine itself within its limited scope of interference in respect of the impugned order. As stated earlier, we notice that the learned Tribunal was not satisfied to pass any interim order at that stage for setting aside the impugned order dated 28th April, 2017, on the basis of the prayer made by the writ petitioner in the original application. This has been clearly stated in the impugned order itself. If the learned Tribunal would have granted such prayer, it would have tantamounted to granting final relief to the writ petitioner at the ad interim stage itself. This was clearly impermissible. The learned Tribunal, therefore, has rightly decided not to pass any interim order at that stage other than the order directing the concerned respondent authorities to supply certified copies of the documents as mentioned in paragraph 8(i) of the original application. 4. That apart and in any event, we notice that the writ petitioner has been successively approaching this Court by filing one petition after the other, which have been referred to in the impugned order dated 28th April, 2017, itself. In order to avoid prolixity, we refrain from giving details of those proceedings filed by the writ petitioner before this Court. That apart and in any event, we notice that the writ petitioner has been successively approaching this Court by filing one petition after the other, which have been referred to in the impugned order dated 28th April, 2017, itself. In order to avoid prolixity, we refrain from giving details of those proceedings filed by the writ petitioner before this Court. The records of the case clearly demonstrate that the writ petitioner has developed a habit of filing successive writ petitions, each one of them centering around the same issue. It is as if the writ petitioner has decided to keep on moving this Court by filing successive writ petitions, till such time an order is passed by this Court which enures to his benefit. This sort of an attitude of a litigant is precisely what has frowned upon by the Supreme Court of India in several of its judgments. In this context, one may take notice of a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao V.K. Parasaran & Ors. reported in, (1996) 5 SCC 530 , wherein it was observed that no litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Courts’ time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. His easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions. Similar observation has been made in another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in, (2012) 5 SCC 398 , while it was considering as to whether there should be any restraint on a writ petitioner in such a fact situation or whether he should be permitted to abuse the judicial process as he likes. The above two judgments of the Supreme Court have been considered, referred to and relied upon by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Debashis Biswas v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in, (2013) 1 Cal LT 25 (HC) = (2013)1 WBLR (Cal) 530. 5. We are in no manner of doubt whatsoever that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the writ petitioner has abused the process of this Court. 6. reported in, (2013) 1 Cal LT 25 (HC) = (2013)1 WBLR (Cal) 530. 5. We are in no manner of doubt whatsoever that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the writ petitioner has abused the process of this Court. 6. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed with costs and stands accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at 300 G.Ms., which shall be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, to be kept earmarked for its utilisation by the Mediation and Conciliation Committee of the High Court. Costs has to be deposited within a week from date. 7. List this matter on 22nd November, 2018, only for the purpose of ascertaining payment of costs in terms of this order. Arindam Mukherjee, J. : I agree.