AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In Re: C.A.N. 8227 of 2017
This is an application seeking condonation of 602 days’ delay in presentation of the intra-court appeal against the judgment and order dated 16th
November, 2015 passed by a learned Judge of this Court. We have heard Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate for the applicants, Mr. Sanyal,
learned advocate for the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner and Mr. Majumder, learned Government Pleader for the State.It appears that although leave
was granted by a co-ordinate Bench on 11th February, 2016 to the applicants to file the memorandum of appeal without the certified copy of the
impugned judgment and order and the memorandum of appeal was accordingly tendered, there was delay in obtaining the certified copy thereof which
was ultimately filed on 15th June, 2017 resulting in the appeal being delayed by 602 days.
We have perused the statements made in the application seeking condonation of delay. We are satisfied that sufficient cause has been set up.
Accordingly, delay in presentation of the appeal (M.A.T. 240 of 2016) is condoned.The application for condonation of delay (C.A.N. 8227 of 2017) is
allowed. Register the appeal, if it is otherwise in form. In Re: C.A.N. 3423 of 2016 We have heard the parties at length on the question of grant of
interim relief.
There appears to be a serious allegation levelled by the applicants to the effect that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner (hereafter the writ petitioner)
had obtained an employment in a school within the jurisdiction of the South 24-Parganas, District Primary School Council (hereafter the DPSC) by
forging documents as well as creating further forged documents in course of this proceeding for sustaining the order under challenge before us. Prima
facie, we are satisfied that the documents placed for consideration before the learned Judge and on which His Lordship relied are also forged.
One of the grounds on which the learned Judge felt disinclined to believe the version of the DPSC was that no criminal proceedings had been initiated
against the writ petitioner although it was alleged that she had indulged in forgery. Such finding of the learned Judge does not appear to be correct in
view of the submissions of Mr. Majumder. Mr. Majumder submits that the First Information Report registered on the basis of the complaint of the
Chairman, DPSC, South 24-Parganas has ended in a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Mandir Bazar P.S.
Charge Sheet No â€" 37/11 dated 08.02.2011 under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code against the writ petitioner. Insofar as the First
Information Report that was registered on the basis of the complaint of the writ petitioner is concerned, the investigation has culminated in filing of
final report vide Mandir Bazar P.S. F.R.M.F. No â€" 11/12 dated 08.02.2011 under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
In view of the above, there is good reason to stay the order impugned. However, since Mr. Sanyal has assured the Court that the contempt
proceedings which are pending before the learned Judge shall not be proceeded with without first obtaining the leave of this Court, we do not consider
it necessary to pass a formal order staying operation of the impugned order.
However, considering the developments that have taken place since the writ petitioner filed an affidavit-inopposition to this application annexing
thereto a purported response received by her in pursuance of a request for information made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the
R.T.I. Act), we are of the considered view that a thorough investigation is called for, particularly because the applicants as well as Mr. Majumder
claim such response to be forged too.
The Joint Director and Employment Exchange Officer, District Employment Exchange, Diamond Harbour is personally present in Court and through
Mr. Majumder he has submitted that he is the only officer functioning in the Diamond Harbour Employment Exchange since 2017. It is further
submitted that he is the designated State Public Information Officer under the R.T.I. Act and there is no other employment officer in the said
exchange since 2014. By referring to the dispatch register maintained at the said exchange, it has also been sought to be impressed upon us that no
response under the R.T.I. Act was sent to any applicant during the course of this year.
The allegations are serious enough to warrant a First Information Report; however, we leave it to the Joint Director to decide his future course of
action in this regard. The application for stay (C.A.N. 3423 of 2016) shall be listed on 3rd July, 2018 once again when we propose to pass further
order on the application for stay after hearing the learned advocates for the parties and on being apprised of the development(s) that take place in the
meanwhile. The Dispatch Register produced by Mr. Majumder is perused and returned to him.
The original of the letter dated 11th January, 2018 and the envelope by which it was dispatched to Mr. Ratul Biswas, learned advocate-on-record for
the writ petitioner shall be retained in the safe custody of the Registrar General until further orders together with the copy of the application dated 13th
December, 2017 under Section 6 of the R.T.I. Act filed by the writ petitioner through Mr. Ratul Biswas bearing an endorsement acknowledging
receipt, made by the employment officer of the said exchange dated 15th December, 2017.
The Assistant Court Officer is directed to insert the letter dated 11th January, 2018 with the envelope and the application dated 13th December, 2017
in a sealed cover in the presence of the Assistant Registrar (Court) here and now and send the sealed cover to the Registrar General for keeping the
same in ‘safe custody’ until further orders. Let a plain photocopy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed
over to Mr. Majumder, on usual undertakings.