Shri P.Kannan v. The Deputy Commissioner And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/274/2023 IA NO: CAN/1/2024, CAN/2/2024 Shri P. Kannan Vs.

The Deputy Commissioner and Ors Mr. M. K. Thakur .... for the petitioner Mr. V. D. Sivabalan ... for the respondents July 2, 2024 [SR] Item No.24 Re: CAN/1/2024 Delay condoned.

Re: CAN/2/2024 Writ petition is restored to its original file and number. Re: WPA/274/2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent no.4 Shri Jose K. John working as Surveyor and Draughtsman in the office of the Deputy Commissioner had in an illegal and unauthorized manner signed a letter dated May, 21, 2016 in the capacity of Tehsildar (Settlement).

This issue was brought to the notice of the respondent authorities for appropriate action against the respondent no.4 but no steps had been taken.

Learned counsel for the respondent authorities contends that letter dated May 21, 2016 was issued pursuant to the order of the first Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act directing them to dispose of an application for supplying requisite information to the petitioner within a stipulated timeframe. As per the verbal

direction of superior, fourth respondent who was working as Surveyor & Draughtsman signed the letter in the capacity of Tehsildar (Settlement) in the latter absence to avoid delay. I have considered the materials on record. Writ petitioner had applied for information under the Right to Information Act, but the same was not provided to him. He preferred the appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the said authority on December 29, 2015 directed the APIO(Settlement) and Deputy Secretary (RR) to provide requisite information within one month from the date of first hearing.

Pursuant thereto, by a letter dated January 25, 2016 signed by respondent no.4 as Tehsildar (Settlement) requisite information was given. It is not the case of the petitioner that the information was false. It is his grievance that respondent no.4 who was posted as Surveyor and illegally personated as Tehsildar (Settlement) and issued the letter.

Respondents have offered an explanation in that regard. They claim that the respondent no.4 was instructed to act as Tehsildar (Settlement) in the latter's absence to dispose of the urgent and time bound cases like the present one. The explanation offered is plausible one.

Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion, no further enquiry in the matter is warranted.

Writ petition is dismissed.

( Joymalya Bagchi, J. )