Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 163 (CAL)

Basanta Das v. State of West Bengal

2024-01-24

DEBANGSU BASAK, MD.SHABBAR RASHIDI

body2024
JUDGMENT : In Re: CAN/31/2024 in WPA 13700 of 2021 1. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicant, CAN/31/2024 filed in WPA 13700 of 2021 is allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for. 2. Such application be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition. In Re: CAN/7/2024 in WPA 25380 of 2022 3. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicants, CAN/7/2024 filed in WPA 25380 of 2022 is allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for. 4. Such application be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition. In Re: CAN/29/2024 and CAN/30/2024 in WPA 13700 of 2021 5. The applicants in CAN/29/2024 and CAN/30/2024 be added as party respondents in WPA 13700 of 2021. 6. Such applications be treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition on behalf of such applicants. In Re: CAN/5/2024 and CAN/10/2024 in WPA 18585 of 2021 7. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicants, CAN/5/2024 and CAN/10/2024 filed in WPA 18585 of 2021 are allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for. 8. Such applications be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition. In Re: CAN/7/2023 and CAN/9/2024 in WPA 12270 of 2021 9. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicants, CAN/7/2023 and CAN/9/2024 filed in WPA 12270 of 2021 are allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for. 10. Such applications be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition. In Re: CAN/12/2023, CAN/29/2024 and CAN/32/2024 in WPA 5406 of 2022 11. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicants, CAN/12/2023, CAN/29/2024 and CAN/32/2024 filed in WPA 5406 of 2022 are allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for. 12. Such applications be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition. In Re: CAN/9/2024 in WPA 18585 of 2021 13. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicant, CAN/9/2024 filed in WPA 18585 of 2021 is allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for. 14. Such application be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition. In Re: CAN/6/2024 in WPA 25380 of 2022 15. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicant, CAN/6/2024 filed in WPA 25380 of 2022 is allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for. 16. 14. Such application be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition. In Re: CAN/6/2024 in WPA 25380 of 2022 15. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicant, CAN/6/2024 filed in WPA 25380 of 2022 is allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for. 16. Such application be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition. 17. Supplementary affidavit and notes of arguments filed on behalf of the petitioners in WPA 14670 of 2022 be taken on record. 18. Exception to the affidavit of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) already filed in Court be taken on record. 19. At the commencement of hearing Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, seeks leave to rely upon an affidavit affirmed by one Anindita Bera on January 24, 2024, petitioner of WPA 5538 of 2022. He draws the attention of the Court to the contents of such affidavit and submits that, in response to a Right To Information Application made on February 24, 2021 the School Service Commission by a writing dated January 18, 2024 stated that, School Service Commission possess the OMR sheet. He draws attention of the Court to the photocopy of the OMR sheet as made over to Anindita Bera by the School Service Commission. He submits that the School Service Commission is in possession of the OMR sheet and therefore School Service Commission be directed to produce the same. 20. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Lakshmi Gupta appearing for some of the applicants refers to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that, peacemeal introduction of material should not be allowed. 21. Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for some of the applicants submits that, the date for production of the seized electronic devises ends today. He submits that, Court should not permit introduction of materials such as the supplementary affidavit from time to time. He submits that, there is a procedure established by law, if, the parties requires to introduce any evidence. He contends that, Court is in the midst of hearing. Court regulated the time of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties to make their submissions. Since hearing commenced, no further evidence should be allowed to be introduced. He submits that, there is a procedure established by law, if, the parties requires to introduce any evidence. He contends that, Court is in the midst of hearing. Court regulated the time of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties to make their submissions. Since hearing commenced, no further evidence should be allowed to be introduced. Referring to the provisions of Right To Information Act, 2005, he submits that, the documents sought to be introduced is without jurisdiction and should be ignored by the Court. 22. Mr. Pratik Dhar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for some of the applicants submits that no importance should be attached to the supplementary affidavit. He contends that, the Court should conclude the hearing instead of allowing the parties any opportunity to introduce further evidence in the proceeding. 23. Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate appearing for some of the applicants refers to the order dated June 24, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. He submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court restrained publication of the OMR in the public forum. He submits that provisions of the Evidence Act are required to be considered by the Court prior to deciding on the admissibility of the evidence. Affidavit filed today should not be taken on record. The so-called OMR sheet annexed to the affidavit should not be taken as sacrosanct. 24. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for some of the applicants submits that provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act should be considered. 25. Learned Deputy Solicitor General submits that, seized electronic devices were sent for forensic examination to Hyderabad and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad who by writing declined to examine the same since the materials contained in the electronic devices were voluminous in nature. Hyderabad CFSL was returning such materials. He submits that, materials are expected to reach Kolkata by January 29, 2024. 26. We considered the submissions of the respective counsel. 27. No doubt, the hearing of the matters commenced on January 15, 2024 and that some of the learned counsel concluded their submissions. Others are yet to address the Court. 28. In the course of hearing, on January 18, 2024, one of the applicants requested inspection of the OMR sheet. Such prayer was considered and an order passed with regard thereto. It is thereafter that, one of the petitioners is seeking to introduce a supplementary affidavit. 29. Others are yet to address the Court. 28. In the course of hearing, on January 18, 2024, one of the applicants requested inspection of the OMR sheet. Such prayer was considered and an order passed with regard thereto. It is thereafter that, one of the petitioners is seeking to introduce a supplementary affidavit. 29. Supplementary affidavit of Anindita Bera be kept with the record. Decision on admissibility of the same is postponed. 30. CBI was directed to produce the seized electronic devices preferably by today. 31. CBI is unable to do so. Reason ascribed by the CBI is that the devices are with the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Hyderabad and is in the process of being transmitted to Kolkata and is expected to reach Kolkata on January 29, 2024. 32. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to permit the parties in the proceeding one opportunity to rely upon documents/materials that they wish to rely upon in this proceeding. Parties will produce the originals or such evidence as in their possession. 33. Parties are at liberty to do so by February 5, 2024. 34. List these matters on February 5, 2024.