Manoj Paul v. The Honble Lt.Governor And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** WPA (P)/5/2025 Manoj Paul Vs The Hon'ble Lt. Governor and others Mr. Manoj Paul ... Petitioner-in-person Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty (through virtual mode) Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondent No. 1&2 Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar ... for the respondent No.3 October 28, 2025 [AKB] Item No.3 This Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable. The petitioner is aggrieved by a reply under the Right to Information Act, given by the Public Information officer, Directorate of Shipping Services, pursuant to a direction of the Court. The petitioner submits that the reply is inadequate, evasive and suffers from suppression of material information.

The specific grievance of the petitioner is that a very expensive cruise liner had been requisitioned by the Administration, and the same sailed to Barren Island for the entertainment of the senior officers. This Court should pass necessary orders directing an investigation with regard to the misuse of public resources. The petitioner further submits that the ship costs around 500 Crores and only 41 passengers were on board.

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned Senior Advocate for the Administration submits that the ship had sailed in terms of

a policy of the government, in order to assess a particular situation.

Learned advocate for the respondent No.3 submits that the respondent No.3 does not have any involvement in the matter.

The averments made in the application do not support the prayer. We do not find any evidence at this stage which inspires us to direct an enquiry into the matter. The information given clearly indicates that the 41 tickets were sold from the DSS.

Operation of cruises for the purpose of tourism or for any other purpose, is within the policy of the Administration. Such policy cannot be interfered with by the Court, unless there are adequate materials to show that funds have been either misdirected or misused by the officials.

In such circumstances, we do not entertain the application at this stage. We grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the First Appellate Authority if he is aggrieved by the cryptic and inadequate information given by the concerned Public Information officer.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)