THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus SOMDEB BANDYOPADHYAY & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 23-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009) 1 S.C.R. 504 
A 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
... 
v. 
SOMDEB BANDYOPADHYAY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 397 of 2009) 
JANUARY 23, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Interim order - Delay in filing appeal - Delay not 
c condoned and appeal not entertained - Court passing series 
of interim orders - Permissibility of - Held: Not permissible 
as appeal was non est in eye of law without it being 
entertained - Matter remitted. 
D 
On the basis of enquiry, administrative function was 
withdrawn from respondent 1 and another person was 
\.-
appointed. Respondent 1 filed OA before Administrative 
Tribunal. Tribunal passed certain interim orders and 
ultimately dismissed OA on the ground that Tribunal had 
E 
no jurisdiction. 
Respondent No.1 then filed writ petition before High 
Court seeking restoration of status as Member Secretary 
of Governing body. Certain interim directions were given. 
The appellant-State took stand that respondent 1 was not 
F attending the office and was not signing the attendance 
register. Single Judge of High Court held that since 
factual dispute was involved, the writ petition was not 
entertainable. Writ appeal was filed thereagainst. Certain 
interim orders were passed therein. Writ appeal was 
G allowed holding that since proceedings for absence were 
not initiated, appellant was bound to pay lawful arrears 
and there was no question of any prejudice involved. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that 
H 
504 
"I 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. SOMDEB 
505 
BANDYOPADHYAY & ORS. 
._ 
without condoning the delay several interim orders were 
A 
passed which was not permissible in law. 
' 
~ 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matte1· to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: Even without condoning the delay ·and B 
entertaining the writ app_eal the High Court pass.ed series 
of interim orders. Such a course is impermissible as the 
appeal was non-est in the eye of law without it being 
entertained. Admittedly, the delay in preferring the writ c 
. appeal was not condoned at the time when the interim 
orders were passed. The High Court has committed 
another error in holding th.at the writ peti~ion was 
dismissed principally on the ground that it was the 
..,, 
decision of the Governing Body as to who should be its 
Secretary, although Government approval is necessary 
D 
+ 
for appointment of the Secretary of the Governing Body 
of the Institute. On the contrary the Single Judge 
dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground that 
factual controversy was involved. The Division Bench 
did not discuss this aspect at all. Therefore, the order E 
was clearly indefensible. [Para 6] [507-G~H; 508-A-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 397 
of 2009. 
1r 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 12.1012004 of F 
the High Col!rt at Calcutta in M.A.T. No. 2124 of 2004. 
Tara Chandra Sharma and Neelam Sharma for the 
Appellant. 
.R.K. Gupta, S.K. Gupt?, Arun Yadav, Shekhar Kumar and 
G 
.... 
Manoj K. Mishra, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
. 
OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for 
H 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A both the parties. 
... 
2. Leave granted. 
.• 
3. This appeal arises from the order passed by the 
B 
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowing the writ 
appeal filed by the respondent No.1. 
4. The facts, as presented by the appellants, are as follows: 
... 
\-
Respondent No.1 was appointed to the post of 
c Superintendent of Chhoto Jagulia Junior Technical School, 
presently named as Industrial Training Centre Chhoto Jagulia, 
by the Governing Body of the said Institute on 7.7.1993. He was 
also given the responsibility of the Ex-officio Secretary of the 
Governing Body. 
....
D 
Due to some allegations against Respondent No.1, 
... 
namely, non-functioning of the administrative work as well the 
non-attending the Institution an Enquiry Committee was set up. 
On the basis of the decision of the Committee, administrative 
function as a Member Secretary was withdrawn and another 
E person was appointed. 
A writ petition was filed by respondent No.1 taking the 
stand that he should be allowed to continue as Superintendent. 
His stand was that he was prevented from discharging duties 
F after 10.3.1997. Originally, the petition was filed before the 
West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') and 
interim order was passed by the Tribunal directi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.