Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 184 (CAL)

Ranajit Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal

2019-02-06

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2019
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. In Re: CAN 1065 of 2019 This is an application for addition of party. 2. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application, we are of the view that the proposed respondent is required to be added as necessary and proper party to the present appeal. The application for addition of party is accordingly allowed. In Re: MAT 1235 of 2018 with CAN 10380 of 2018 3. 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. 4. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27th August, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 1801 (W) of 2015 with CAN 10288 of 2016 (Ranajit Kumar Mitra vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). 5. The appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner, Ranajit Kumar Mitra. 6. By the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition stood dismissed for reasons stated therein. For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is set out in its entirety:- "The writ-petitioner submits that he has made full payment for a flat unit in a Housing Cooperative Society called Jadavpur Land and Housing Society Limited. The payment according to the writ-petitioner in full of Rupees twenty-three thousand and odd was made in the year 1989. The writ-petitioner further submits that despite payment, he has not been given possession of the said flat unit and the same has been allotted to a third party. He also submits that he has been successful in initiating a proceeding against the society before the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The remedy of the petitioner is available before the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 subject to its provisions of limitation. The writ petition being WP 1801 (W) of 2015 is, therefore, dismissed. Since the respondents have not used any affidavit to the writ application, the allegations contained therein shall not be deemed to have been admitted by them. CAN 10288 of 2016 This is an application for addition of parties. In view of the order passed hereinabove, the application being CAN 10288 of 2016 has become in-fructuous and the same is hereby dismissed." 7. CAN 10288 of 2016 This is an application for addition of parties. In view of the order passed hereinabove, the application being CAN 10288 of 2016 has become in-fructuous and the same is hereby dismissed." 7. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the issue before the learned Single Judge was in respect of the appellant/writ petitioner not being given possession of a plot by the concerned Cooperative Land Housing Society in spite of having made full payment in the year 1989. The writ petition having been filed belatedly in the year 2015, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 8. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversity are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts of the instant case, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. That apart and in any event, the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. 9. In such circumstances as stated above, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. 10. Dismissal of the appeal or the writ petition, however, shall not cause any prejudice to the rights of the appellant/writ petitioner in any manner, if such right is at all available to the appellant, in law. Arindam Mukherjee, J. - I agree.