Tag: #CalcuttaHC

In light of the COVID-19 situation in West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court resolved on Friday to extend the duration of all interim decisions issued by the High Court and its subordinate courts, including the Tribunals inside West Bengal and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, until August 20, 2021. A Full Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justices IP Mukerjee, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen, and Subrata Talukdar issued an order to that effect.

We extended the interim orders imposed in this Writ Petition till August 20, 2021, in light of the West Bengal government’s extension of restrictions related to the Covid-19 epidemic,” the order stated.

On March 24, 2020, the first such order was issued. This order’s applicability was extended until June 30 on April 23, and again until September 30 on June 24. The Court ruled on August 7 to prolong the duration of interim orders until November 30. It was extended in November until February 28, 2021, and then until March 31, 2021.

Apart from extending the duration of interim court orders, the August 7 ruling had also allowed for the following;

• Any party who is impacted by the continuance of interim orders will be able to petition to have them vacated or modified. This shall also apply to all orders issued after March 15, 2020, by this Court or any Subordinate Courts or Tribunals.
• Court rulings permitting the possession of any premises subject to the payment of rent or occupational charges shall remain in effect despite the non-payment of rent or occupational charges from March 15 to November 30.
• If rent or occupancy costs are not submitted under rent control laws, the tenant or occupant will not be responsible for eviction until November 30 or earlier decisions of the Court.
• Regardless of whether or not the requirements set have been met, all other conditional orders of the Court will remain in effect until further orders. This will apply to non-compliance with the requirements from March 15 to November 30, as well as any prior court rulings.
• This ruling will also apply to orders issued by the High Court’s Original Side.

Last March, the Court decided to dismiss a suo motu writ petition filed to determine whether to prolong interim orders amid the epidemic, claiming that such restrictions did not need to be extended until March 31. However, when COVID-19 limitations were re-imposed in the state, the High Court has resurrected these actions and prolonged the duration of interim orders once again. On August 13, the case will be examined again and will be considered.

-Report by ESHAN SHARMA

Justice Kausik Chanda of Calcutta High Court who was appointed to hear the petition of Mamata Banerjee had recused himself on Wednesday from hearing the Petition. He has also imposed a fine on her of Rs. 5 lakhs for making an application seeking his recusal.

Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee had filed a Petition concerning the Nandigram Assembly election which lost against BJP’s Suvendu Adhikary. She believes some discrepancies were committed in the counting process and asked in her petition to declare the election null and void.

The Case was assigned to Justice Kausik Chanda of Calcutta High Court. After the case been assigned to him Mamata Banerjee had made an application to Justice Rajesh Bindal, the acting Justice of the Calcutta High Court asking for reassignment of to case to some other Justice. Her intention behind this act was that she believed that Justice Chanda will do favoritism as he has some relationship with Bhajpa. She also believed that Justice Chanda will be biased in her case as while his appointment as permanent Judge she objected to it.

Replying to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s application to reassignment Justice Chanda said that there nothing wrong with a judge supporting a political party, like any other citizen they have the right to support and vote. He also said that he had no personal interest in the case and he would have heard and made a judgment on it like any other case without being bias. He also stated that there a whole different reason behind him recusing it. So that no controversies can be made in the interest of Justice.

-Report by RIDDHI DUBEY

-Report by Manaswa Sharma

INTRODUCTION

On 01.06.2021 the Calcutta High Court in its bench which includes Justice Shekhar B. Sharaf, withinside the case of Bineeta Patnaik Padhi Vs. Union of India & Ors. held that one Army Public School, Panagarh, is held to be a State below Article 12 of the Constitution because it turned into discharging public responsibility. It, in addition, said that if the petitioner has felt that she stands violated of her valuable essential proper or any felony proper for that matter, it’s miles this Court’s bounden responsibility to look at the propriety of the identical.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The gift Writ petition below Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed with the aid of using the petitioner claiming that at the same time as she turned into discharging her obligations because the Principal of Army Public School at Panagarh and at the same time as serving in her tenure as a prolonged probationer, she turned into terminated with the aid of using the chairman of the identical faculty from such published in violation of each her essential rights in addition to positive statutory rights.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Ms. Sonal Sinha found out suggest performing on behalf of the petitioner argued on the subsequent grounds:

• The suggest at the same time as concluding prayed earlier than the courtroom docket to invoke the writ of mandamus to implement provider situations of instructors serving in non-public unaided instructional establishments.
• Reliance turned into additionally located upon the choice of the Apex Court at the same time as analyzing the problem of termination of an Assistant Teacher in a non-public unaided group, in which it turned into held that a writ utility is certainly maintainable in such instances whilst opposition to the non-public unaided instructional establishments.
• It turned into emphasized that although the connection between the petitioner and the respondent turned into taken into consideration to have emanated out of a settlement, it’d now no longer close the doorways of this Court in invoking the writ jurisdiction below Article 226 of the Constitution.
• It turned into contended that primarily based totally on diverse choices of the Supreme Court the Right to Education is an essential proper below Article 21 of the charter and consequently denial of the identical might bring about the violation of one’s essential proper.
• It turned into submitted that those non-public establishments supplying training to college students from the age of six years and onwards, along with better training carry out a public responsibility and as a consequence falls below the purview of Article 12.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Mr. Y.J. Dastoor, found out Additional Solicitor General, performing on behalf of the contesting Respondents argued on the subsequent grounds:

• Mr. Dastoor additionally argued that for the reason that stated faculty turned into a non-public unaided faculty and the AWES that is dealing with it, isn’t a public body, because of the mandate of Article 12 of the Constitution of India consequently the affairs of the stated faculty might be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
• It turned into additionally contended that the jurisdiction below Article 226 should handiest be exercised with the aid of using a constitutional courtroom docket handiest if, an detail of public regulation is worried that is the sine qua non for the invocation of this Court’s powers below Article 226 of the Constitution and such electricity isn’t to be trifled with simple to implement non-public contracts of provider/ or provider associated contracts entered into among aware and ready parties.
• He additionally submitted that there’s neither a contravention of any statutory proper nor any essential proper assured below Part III of the Constitution of India, as alleged with the aid of using the petitioner.
• It turned into argued that such writ utility turned into now no longer maintainable for the cause that the stated faculty is a non-public unaided instructional group operated with the aid of using the Army Welfare Education Society.
• It turned into in addition submitted that the reality that the petitioner turned into serving below a length of prolonged probation and it turned into legally permissible for each the AWES or the stated faculty to assess the petitioner’s overall performance with the aid of using a distinctive feature of her popularity as a probationer, making her eligible for both an affirmation or a discharge from such provider and within side the occasion of a discharge, such settlement couldn’t be enforced thru writ utility below Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

OBSERVATION AND JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

The following remark has been made with the aid of using the Hon’ble bench of Calcutta High Court:

• If the petitioner has felt that she stands violated of her valuable essential proper or any felony proper for that matter, it’s miles this Court’s bounden responsibility to look at the propriety of the identical.
• In the case of Article 226, similarly to the enforcement of an essential proper, a petitioner also can are searching for the enforcement of any felony proper.
• The stated faculty that is run with the aid of using AWES had come to discharge a public responsibility which stands imposed in phrases of each Article 21A of the Constitution of India in addition to the RTE Act which gave impact to the essential proper in unequivocal phrases.
• A writ of mandamus may be issued to a non-public body/authority which discharges ‘public function’ below Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

On thinking about the above the objection at the floor of maintainability of the petition turned into rejected. Further, the stated faculty, Army Public School, Panagarh, is held to be a State’ below Article 12 of the Constitution because it turned into discharging public responsibility.