Mohseen Ahmed v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/18/2024 Mohseen Ahmed Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Ms. G.Mini ... for the appellant Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents June 13, 2024 [SR] Item No.9 The challenge preferred in the present appeal is against an order whereby the learned Single Judge, inter alia, observed that from the report filed by the Administration, it appeared that the scheme-in-question, under which the appellant claimed certain subsidy, is no longer in force.

While doing so, the learned Single Judge observed that the case of the petitioner was not favourably considered in view of the observations made by the Assistant Commissioner (Car Nicobar) that the entire area of Car Nicobar Islands enclosed within the coastline but excluding the area comprising the air field and ports of Car Nicobar are to be reserved area notified vide Administration Notification No. ANPATR/3(1)/1 dated 2nd April, 1957; however, there is no provision with respect to conversion of land within the reserved area. On such premise, it was observed that no relief could be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned Single Judge acted merely on the report filed by the Administration

without looking into the fact that no specific rejection of the petitioner's prayer/application had been produced by the respondent authorities.

It is submitted that since the provisions of relaxation are applicable, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered such aspect of the matter.

Learned counsel for the respondents points out to the observations made in the impugned order which clearly show that the scheme-in-question is no longer in force, although a similar scheme has come into effect in the name and style "Andaman and Nicobar Islands Industrial Development Scheme (ANIIDS)", notified on January 01, 2019.

Upon a consideration of the impugned order, we find that there is no scope of interference with the same. What the learned Single Judge did was merely to take into account the provisions of relaxation and to consider that the case of the petitioner was not favourably considered since there was an observation by the Administration that there is no provision with respect to conversion of land within the reserved area.

Irrespective of whether the application of the petitioner was actually rejected or not, which is the plinth of the submission of the appellant, the fact remains that if there was no provision for such conversion within the reserved area, there would not be any possibility of giving any relief to the petitioner in any event. That apart, we are conscious of the settled principle that the Appellate Courts are more circumspect in intra-court appeals and there is no interference unless there is any patent perversity and/or gross irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. In any event, nothing in the impugned order prevents the petitioner from applying

and taking advantage, if so entitled otherwise, of any existing scheme, including the scheme referred to in the impugned order. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to admit the present appeal. Accordingly, MAT/18/2024 is dismissed in the light of the observations made above.

No order as to cost.

Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance of due formalities.

( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. ) ( Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )