Rajeev Kumar Sinha vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Biswanath Somadder, J.

Let the affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record.

Re: CAN 3499 of 2018(Application for condonation of delay)

Having heard the learned advocates for the parties 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 3499 of 2018, is accordingly allowed.

MAT 239 of 2018withCAN 1680 of 2018

By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day’s list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. The instant

appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th November, 2017, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 12952 (W) of 2017 (Rajeev Kumar

Sinha vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, Rajeev Kumar Sinha’s writ petition was dismissed with costs

assessed at Rs. 10,000/-, which was directed to be paid to the High Court Law Clerks’ Association.

The appellant before us is the writ petitioner, namely, Rajeev Kumar Sinha. It appears from a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order that

the issue which was sought to be raised by the appellant/writ petitioner is in respect of illegal construction being carried out in premises no. 161,

Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata â€" 700 007. Before the learned Single Judge the writ petitioner claimed to be a ‘contesting candidate’ of a

particular political party. He took it upon himself to identify alleged illegal constructions in Ward No. 41 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

During the course of hearing, the learned Single Judge had perused a report submitted on behalf of the concerned authorities of the Kolkata Municipal

Corporation, which has been setout in the impugned judgment and order. Perusing the said report, it appears that so far as the allegation sought to be

raised by the appellant/writ petitioner with regard to alleged illegal construction in the particular premises-in-question is concerned, a building plan

dated 19th August, 2014, had been sanctioned under section 393 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, read with Kolkata Municipal

Corporation Building Rules, 2009 for construction of (B+G+V) storied residential building of height 19.350 meters. In the report it has been clearly

stated that the inspection has revealed that constructional work is going on as per sanctioned plan. Taking note of this report, the learned Single Judge

proceeded to observe as follows: -

“Having considered the submissions and the materials placed, this Court is satisfied that the claim of the petitioner is both frivolous and vexatious.

The petitioner has made no attempt to verify the facts on the ground prior to invoking jurisdiction of this Court. At the minimum the petitioner did not

bother to verify the allegations, it true, by way of adopting the Right to Information Act, 2005 route. Accordingly, like Don Quizote public time, energy

and resources have been consumed in chasing windmills. W.P. 12952 (W) of 2017 stands accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 10,000/-

payable to the High Court Law Clerks’ Association. It will be open to the learned Court next hearing a petition of the present petitioner on a pari

materia allegation, to verify the payment of costs, as directed above, towards proof of be bona fides of the petitioner to the cause, if any.â€​

In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of

the impugned judgment and order. So far as the impugned judgment and order is concerned â€" to the extent it relates to the order of dismissal of the

writ petition â€" we do not find any cogent and justifiable reason to interfere with the same. However, so far as the direction of payment of Rs.

10,000/ to the High Court Law Clerks’ Association is concerned, we find that the learned Single Judge has further qualified this direction with an

observation that it would be open to the Court while next hearing a petition of the appellant/writ petitioner on a pari materia allegation, to verify the

payment of costs towards proof of the bona fides of the petitioner to his cause, if any.

We are of the view that in the facts of the instant case, the order of the learned Single Judge directing payment of costs assessed at Rs. 10,000/- and

further qualifying the same with such observation as stated hereinabove, are required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is

allowed only to the extent as indicated above and the application for stay stands disposed of accordingly.