Sanjeet Roy v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WPA/2/2022 Sanjeet Roy ... Petitioner Vs.

The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and others ... Respondents Mr. K.M.B Jayapal ... for the Petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty .... for the Respondents September 21, 2022 [MAM] Item No.26 On earlier occasion the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer for mutation of the land bearing Survey No. 46/1, 16 and 17 in Sippighat village.

The said writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on April 6, 2021 with the following orders:- "This Court has heard learned advocate representing the writ petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mandal, learned advocate representing the respondent authorities. After consideration of the facts of the case, this Court finds it apposite to direct the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, Port Blair to consider the representation of the writ petitioner dated 15th September, 2017 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order upon passing a reasoned order in support of the decision to be taken by authority. It is further directed that the respondent no. 2 before taking decision shall give an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner.

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of."

In compliance with the said order dated April 6, 2021 the case was considered by respondent no. 2 and by an

order dated December 20, 2021 the claim of the petitioner was turned down by the said authority.

Mr. Jayapal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in arriving at such decision, the respondent no. 2 had sought a report from Tehsildar, Port Blair and relying upon the said report the order impugned in this writ petition was passed. Mr. Jayapal specifically argued that the said report was never served upon the petitioner during the course of the hearing. The petitioner came to know about the said report only when the order impugned was served upon him.

The case of non-supply of report of the Tehsildar has been made out in paragraph 11 of the writ application. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents does not deny such allegation specifically. Only one line response has been made by saying that the order impugned has been passed by making proper enquiry.

I am of the view that Mr.Jayapal is right in contending that when the respondent no.2 arrived at a decision relying upon the report of the relevant Tehsildar, the said report ought to have been served upon the petitioner to enable him to deal with the content of the report. By not supplying the copy of the report, respondent no. 2 has failed to comply with the principle of natural justice. The order impugned is liable to be set aside on that ground alone and accordingly, the same is set aside. The respondent no.2 will hear the matter afresh only after

serving a copy of the report of the Tehsildar to the petitioner. Let such exercise be completed within a period of one month from date. The petitioner shall be again afforded an opportunity of hearing before respondent no.2. The reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of the order that may be passed by respondent no.2.

Accordingly, WPA/2/2022 is disposed of.

(Kausik Chanda, J.)