Jai Lakshmi v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/20/2022 IA No.CAN/1/2022 Jai Lakshmi ... Appellant Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others .... Respondents Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the appellant Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ... for the respondents January 17, 2023 [SR] Item No.4 The present appeal and the stay application are instituted, inter alia, challenging the order dated 16th December, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge on a writ petition being WPA/219/2019.

The appeal as well as stay application are treated on day's list and are disposed of upon passing following order. After hearing Mr. KMB Jayapal, learned advocate representing the appellant/writ petitioner and also Mr.Ramendu Agarwal, learned advocate representing the respondents, it appears that the learned Single Judge passed direction which runs infra - "In those circumstances, the Tehsildar, Port Blair, is, however, directed to register a formal complaint with the local police in respect of the forgery and fabrication alleged against the writ petitioner. Upon receipt of such complaint, the concerned police authority shall register an FIR and investigate it accordingly."

The grievance of the petitioner is the direction given by the learned Single Judge placing reliance on the statements made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition directing the Tehsildar, Port Blair, to lodge a formal complaint with the local police station in respect of the forgery and fabrication alleged against the writ petitioner and upon receipt of such complaint, the concerned police authority to register an FIR and investigate it accordingly.

The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is, before passing the aforesaid direction by the learned Single Judge, reasonable opportunity ought to have been granted to petitioner to controvert the statements made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition used by the Tehsildar, Port Blair.

Though it has been submitted by the learned advocate representing the respondents that there was a direction for filing affidavit-in-reply but it appears inadvertently affidavitin-reply was not used by the petitioner at the material point of time when the writ petition was finally considered by the learned Single Judge.

Considering the gravity of the situation, which has arisen in view of the direction passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears to us that, prior to give such direction upon the police authority to initiate criminal proceeding against the petitioner, a reasonable opportunity ought to have been afforded to the petitioner to controvert the statements made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition by filing counter affidavit.

In view of the aforesaid scenario, leave is granted to the appellant/petitioner to file affidavit-in-reply to the affidavitin-opposition used by the Tehsildar, Port Blair, within a period of fortnight from this date in the connected writ

petition with an advance copy upon the learned advocate representing the said Tehsildar.

The issue involved in this writ petition is remanded to the learned Single Judge for consideration, after filing of affidavit-in-reply by the appellant within the aforesaid time. Accordingly, the writ petition stands revived. The order dated 16th December, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA/219 /2019 stands set aside. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the issue and the same remains open and to be decided by the learned Single Judge at the time of consideration of the writ petition.

Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

( Subhasis Dasgupta, J. ) ( Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. )