Adjournment - An adjudicating authority is entitled to reject a prayer for adjournment - Merely, because the adjudicating authority rejected a prayer for adjournment ipso facto does not mean that, the proceeding stands vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice.
In the present case, the adjudicating authority did not allow the petitioners’ prayer for adjournment. There is no infirmity in the rejection of such prayer. Merely, because the adjudicating authority rejected a prayer for adjournment ipso facto does not mean that, the proceeding stands vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The petitioner did not avail of the same. That does not tantamount to the adjudicating authority acting in breach of the principles of natural justice warranting intervention by the writ Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
(Appellete Side)
( Debangsu Basak, J. )
W.P. No. 17150 (W) of 2018
01.03.2019
The State Fisheries Development Corporation Limited and
Anr.
Versus The District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur & Ors.
Ms. Shanti Das, Mr. Amar Mitra … for the petitioners.
Mr. Partha Sarkar … respondent no.6. Mr. Sakya Sen, Mr.
Tauseef Khan … for the State.
Re: CAN No.2012 of 2019
This is an application for extension of interim order.
It would be appropriate to take up the writ petition for final
consideration rather than extending the interim order.
CAN 2012 of 2019 is disposed of by taking up the writ petition
for final hearing by treating the same as on the day’s list.
No order as to costs.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that,
the first petitioner is a Government of West Bengal undertaking. The first
petitioner is engaged in the business of pisci-culture. The first petitioner
obtainedland from the District administration. Subsequent to the first
petitioner being put into possession of such land, the petitioner undertook
pisci-culture thereat and about 150 persons are working in the project. The
State Government is now wrongfully seeking to resume possession of such land.
The State Government is not entitled to do so in view of Section 8 of the West
Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984. She draws attention of the Court to the fact
that, in the earlier writ petition, a direction was issued to the District
Magistrate to hear the petitioners afresh on such issue of eviction. The petitioner
preferred an appeal from such direction of the writ Court. The appeal is
pending. The District Magistrate afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
On August 21, 2018, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners appeared
before the District Magistrate and prayed for an adjournment. Such prayer was
rejected and the impugned order was passed. She submits that, the impugned
order is vitiated by the breach of principles of natural justice. The
petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. The District Magistrate
ought to have taken into consideration the fact that, an appeal was pending
against the order passedin the first writ petition. Moreover, the District Magistrate
ought to have looked into the provisions of the Act of 1984 and the fact that
the first petitioner is in possession of the land in question prior to passing
the impugned order. Therefore, there is infirmity in the impugned order
requiring the interference by the writ Court.
Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that,
the land belongs to the State. The State decided to undertake an eco-tourism project on such
land. The first petitioner let out such land to the third parties and is having
an income in excess of Rs.34 lakhs therefrom. The State requires the land for
public purpose. The first petitioner was asked to vacate the land. The
petitioner not having done so, the District Magistrate initiated proceedings
for the eviction of the first petitioner. The initial order of eviction, was
assailed by the writ petitioner in WP No.5671(W) of 2016 (The State Fisheries
Development Corporation Limited and Anr. Versus State of West Bengal &
Ors.). Such writ petition was ultimately disposed of by a judgment
and order dated May 8, 2018 by requiring theDistrict Magistrate to hear the
petitioners afresh and to pass a final order. The judgment and order dated May
8, 2018 allows the District Magistrate to take possession with adequate police
help and evict the petitioner from the tank in question after expiry of 10 days
from the date of such decision.
He submits that, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
The petitioners were afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Although the
petitioners preferred an appeal from the judgment and order dated May 8, 2018,
the petitioners did not obtain any stay. Therefore, there was no impediment in
the District Magistrate deciding the issue. The petitioners wanted time on
August 21, 2018 so as to delay the project if possible. Refusal of a prayer for
adjournment ought not to be interfered with. Therefore, according to him, the
writ petition should be dismissed.
Having regard to the rival submissions of the parties and
after considering the materials placed on record, I find that, the first
petitioner is in possession of a plot of land which, the State Government
requires for the purpose of undertaking an eco-tourism project. The District
Magistrate initiated proceedings for eviction ofthe petitioners. Such
proceedings resulted in an order which was assailed by the petitioners in WP
No.5671(W) of 2016. Such writ petition was ultimately disposed of by the
judgment and order dated May 8, 2018 requiring the District Magistrate to give
fresh hearing to the petitioners and to take a decision thereon. It also
provided that, in the event, the District Magistrate decides that, there is nothing
which would make him change his mind so far taking of possession of the tank in
question as indicated in the letter dated May 26, 2015, he shall take
possession and evict the petitioners from the tank in question after expiry of
10 days from the date of such decision.
Subsequent thereto, the District Magistrate heard the parties
afresh on August 21, 2018. The petitioner was represented before the District
Magistrate. A prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of the petitioner
and such prayer was rejected. The District Magistrate finds that, there was no
document of title existing in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the District
Magistrate proceeds to direct the eviction of the petitioner in consonance with
the judgment and order dated May 8, 2018.
An adjudicating authority is entitled to rejecta prayer for
adjournment. In the present case, the adjudicating authority did not allow the
petitioners’ prayer for adjournment. There is no infirmity in the rejection of
such prayer. Merely, because the adjudicating authority rejected a prayer for
adjournment ipso facto does not mean that, the proceeding stands vitiated by
breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was afforded a
reasonable opportunity of hearing. The petitioner did not avail of the same.
That does not tantamount to the adjudicating authority acting in breach of the
principles of natural justice warranting intervention by the writ Court.
The parties are bound by the judgment and order dated May 8,
2018 passed in WP No.5671(W) of 2016. Although an appeal is pending, since
there is no stay, no infirmity can be ascribed in the action taken by the
District Magistrate in deciding the issue finally.
In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the
decision impugned of the District Magistrate.
WP No.17150(W) of 2018 is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
On the prayer of the learned Advocate for thepetitioners, stay
of this order is granted for a period of fifteen days from date.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for,
be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.