Calcutta High Court:The petition was filed by the applicants, the owners of a property located at a riverbank (Ghat), seeking the recall of the Court’s order dated 30-10-2024, which permitted the celebration of “Chhat Puja” at the property in question, on the grounds that the order was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud. Rai Chattopadhyay, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the applicants failed to demonstrate with sufficient precision that fraud had been committed upon them and did not take necessary steps to protect their rights over the property, thereby concluding that the applications for recall of the order were not maintainable under the existing laws.
The case revolves around two applications filed by the applicants, who are the owners of a property situated at a riverbank (Ghat), seeking the recall of the order which permitted the celebration of “Chhat Puja” at the said property. The applicants contend that the Court’s order was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud, as they were not made parties to the writ petition concerning this issue, despite being the owners of the property that was central to the proceedings.
The applicants argue that they were deliberately excluded from the writ petition and assert that their non-inclusion violated their rights as property owners. They claim that the writ petition could not have been properly adjudicated without their involvement, which, according to them, renders the order a nullity. In their submissions, the applicants request that they be added as parties to the writ petition and the impugned order be recalled due to the alleged fraud and misrepresentation.
In response, the maintainability of the case was challenged arguing that the Court’s order, having been passed, is functus officio i.e., ‘no longer subject to further judicial action’ and that the proper remedy for the applicants is to appeal, not seek a recall. It was also asserted that the right to perform “Chhat Puja” at the property stems from a legitimate expectation based on its long-standing tradition since 1996. He denied the allegations of fraud or misrepresentation and argued that the application for the recall of the order is therefore not maintainable.
The State submitted a report to the Court, clarifying that the police authorities are not involved in determining the rights of the parties concerning the property. He assured the Court that adequate arrangements have been made in compliance with the order dated 30-10-2024.
The Court noted that while the applicants had expressed apprehensions in their letter to the police, they failed to take sufficient legal action to protect their interests or demonstrate that any fraud had been committed. The Court also noted that the applicants did not show that they had been deprived of their rights in a way that would justify the recall of the order. The applicants also failed to prove that the writ petitioner gained any unfair advantage through the alleged misrepresentation. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that the applicants, though adversely affected, had other legal remedies available to challenge the order, such as an appeal.
Thus, the Court concluded that the applications for the recall of the order and the addition of the applicants as parties are not maintainable.
[Bally Sarvajanik Chath Puja Samity v. State of West Bengal, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 9867, decided on 05-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sakya Sen, Senior Counsel, Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, Mr. Ayan Mitra, Advocates for the applicants in CAN 1 of 2024 & CAN 2 of 2024.
Mr.Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, Ld.Senior Counsel, Mr.Samrat Pal, Mr.Saugato Mitra, Advocates for petitioners.
Mr.Dipanjan Datta, Mr.Dipendu Narayan Banerjee, Ms.Mahua Dutta Biswas, Mr.Subrata Dasgupta, Advocates for the State