The Calcutta Tramways Co. (1978) Ltd. Presently West Bengal Transport Corporation Ltd v. Sudist Kumar Jha And ORS.

ORDER SHEET IA NO: GA 1 of 2024 APOT No. 178 of 2024 with WPO 101 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE THE CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS CO. (1978) LTD. PRESENTLY WEST BENGAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD AND ANR.

VS SUDIST KUMAR JHA AND ORS.

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN The Hon'ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date : 16th May, 2024.

Ms. DeblinaChattaraj led by Mr. Niladri Bhattacharjee, Adv.

...For the Appellant Mr. Supratick Syomal, Adv.

Ms. Somosreedebi Dutta, Adv.

...For the Respondent Mr. Dipnath Roy Chowdhury, Adv.

...for the State The Court : By consent of the parties, the appeal and the application are taken up together and disposed of by this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the appellants are not averse to the idea of consideration of the representation by the Managing Director of the Corporation, however,

the observation made in paragraph 11 of the impugned order that the note by the Chairman of the appellant no. 1 on the representation of the petitioner dated 26th September, 2013 appears to be cryptic and that it did not consider Rule 55(4) of the said Rules would create difficulty for appellant no. 2 to decide the matter in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The only impediment we foresee is because of the hierarchy the Managing Director might be shy to ignore the note of the Chairman in implementing the order of the learned Single Judge. We can only remind the appellant no.

2 that he is obliged to act on the basis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and in deciding the said matter he cannot be influenced by the observation of the Chairman or any remark made by the learned Single Judge with regard to the cryptic note of the Chairman and nonconsideration of Rule 55(4) of the said Rules. We do not find any infirmity in the order as the reason for such observation by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 11 is adequately borne out from the observation made in the earlier paragraphs of the said order. Hence, we do not find any reason to admit the appeal or modify the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 11 of the said order.

in favour of the writ petitioner. The Managing Director was directed to consider Rule 55(4) of the relevant Rules while deciding the representation notwithstanding any cryptic comment made by the Chairman.

It is needless to mention that the decision of the Chairman cannot influence the Managing Director when he was directed by the learned Single Judge to consider the matter and not to act as a subordinate officer to the Chairman for the purpose of deciding the matter.

The appeal and the application are accordingly stand dismissed.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) TR/