Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 240 (CAL)

Priti Ranjan Sarkar v. District Magistrate, Nadia

2019-02-19

BISWANATH SOMADDER, MD.NIZAMUDDIN

body2019
JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. This matter appears as "To Be Mentioned" at the instance of the appellant. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondents when the matter is taken up for consideration even at the time of second call. In Re: CAN 7304 of 2018 3. This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. Having heard the learned advocate for the applicant and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant to explain the delay in filing of the appeal. As such, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay, being CAN 7304 of 2018 is accordingly allowed. In Re: MAT 1985 of 2017 with CAN 10045 of 2018 5. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 9th August, 2017, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 16566 (W) of 2016 (Sri Priti Ranjan Sarkar vs. District Magistrate, Nadia & Ors). 6. By the said judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition for such reasons as stated therein. For convenience, the impugned judgment and order dated 9th August, 2017, is reproduced herein below in its entirety:- "The petitioner in this writ petition seeks disposal of a representation made to the Pollution Control Board regarding a business of pesticides/insecticides being carried on by the private respondents. Learned advocate for the petitioner refers to a complaint made to the Pollution Control Board. He also refers to the complaint made to the Municipal Corporation requesting that the trade licence in favour of the private respondents need not be renewed. He draws attention to the court to the disposal of the complaint made to the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. Referring to the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the business carried on by the private respondents is affecting the health of the petitioner. Learned advocate for the private respondents submits that the Pollution Control Board had disposed of the complaint in the year 2008. The private respondents have all the licences required to carry on the business. None appears for the other respondents. The complaint of the petitioner that the private respondents are carrying on business of pesticides/insecticides affecting the health of the petitioner remains unsubstantiated. The private respondents have all the licences required to carry on the business. None appears for the other respondents. The complaint of the petitioner that the private respondents are carrying on business of pesticides/insecticides affecting the health of the petitioner remains unsubstantiated. Nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate that the cited rules Hazardous of Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 are attracted to the business carried on by the private respondents, or that the private respondents are acting in breach thereof. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition. WP No.16566 (W) of 2016 is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 7. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. 8. Even a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the same is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, interference is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. We do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. 9. As such, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal, which is liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed along with the connected application. I agree. - (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)