Abhijit Mondal v. Koushik Sil And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas M.A.T. 1144 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025 CAN 3 of 2025 Abhijit Mondal vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra Ms. Madhurai Sinha For the Writ petitioner/ Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das For the State : Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, Ld. A.G.P., Ms. Ashima Das (Sil) Heard & Judgment on : August 1, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. CAN 1 of 2025 is an application of the appellant seeking leave to appeal against the impugned order dated April 25, 2025 passed in W.P.A. 7320 of 2025.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant is a Secretary of a college in respect of which the writ petitioner/private respondent filed the writ petition resulting in the impugned order.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the contents of the impugned order. He submits that, the learned Single Judge required the appellant to seek permission of the Inspector-in-Charge of the local police station to enter into the college premises. He submits that, the appellant is the Secretary of the college and, therefore, the appellant is required to enter into the college as and when required.

4. State and the private respondent/writ petitioner are represented.

5. Order impugned materially affects the interest of the appellant as a Secretary of the college.

6. In such circumstances, we grant leave to the appellant to prefer the instant appeal.

7. CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed.

8. Department reports a delay of 66 days in preferring the appeal.

9. CAN 3 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay.

10. In view of the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and for the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in making and filing the appeal.

11. CAN 3 of 2025 is disposed of.

12. CAN 2 of 2025 is an application seeking appropriate relief in the pending appeal.

13. By consent of the appearing parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

14. Appellant is aggrieved by such portions of the impugned order which require the appellant to take permission of the Inspector-in-Charge of the local police station to enter into the college premises.

15. It is admitted at the Bar that the appellant is the Secretary of the college.

16. As a Secretary of the college, therefore, the appellant is required to enter into the college premises.

17. Allegations as against the appellant of interference in the affairs of the college, vis-à-vis the private respondent/writ petitioner functioning as the Principal of such college is absent in the writ petition.

18. In such circumstances, the requirement on the appellant to seek permission of the Inspector-in-Charge to enter into the college, as contained in the impugned order is set aside.

19. M.A.T. 1144 of 2025 and the application being CAN 2 of 2025 are disposed of. (Debangsu Basak, J.)

20. I agree S.D.

(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)