Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anindya Sundar Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 21 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:-
The Hon'ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad
And
The Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas
WPST 209 of 2025
with
WPST 210 of 2025
Anindya Sundar Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Others
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.N Roy ,
Mr. G. Haldar,
Ms. Sudheshna Mondal,
Ms. Rima Chatterjee.
For the State in
WPST 209 of 2025 : Mr. Sk. Md. Galib,
Mr. Sayan Ganguly.
For the State in : Mr. Sk. Md. Galib,
WPST 210 of 2025 Ms. Munmun Ganguly,
Ms. Deboleena Ghosh.
Judgment on : 21.05.2026
Madhuresh Prasad, J.:
1. The writ petitioner was appointed as General Duty Medical Officer
(GDMO). Thereafter, he was proceeded against on the charge that
while submitting his police verification report (PVR) he did not
mention about a pending criminal case in P.S. Case No.1453 of 2014.
He was dismissed from service on 22.02.2021. The same was assailed
before the tribunal in O.A. No.662 of 2024.
2. The writ petitioner thereafter allegedly joined as a medical officer (G &
O) at Chandrakona Rural hospital suppressing the penalty of
dismissal from service dated 22.02.2021. Therefore, the Block Medical
Officer of Health directed the writ petitioner by a communication
dated 11.12.2024 to refund the total amount of salary disbursed to
him as Medical Officer G & O being an amount of Rs.24,86,619.00/-
via TR-7 challan. He was also directed to submit proof of deposit of
the amount. He was directed to cease all association with duties and
responsibilities of the post at the hospital. The communication dated
11.12.2024 is put to challenge in O.A. No.667 of 2024
3. The present two writ petitions arise out of the above two O.As.
4. Mr. Galib, learned State Advocate raised the preliminary objection
regarding maintainability of the writ petitions. Referring to an order
dated 09.07.2025 passed in the two OAs filed by the writ petitioner
before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (‘SAT’ for short). He
submits that the order does not contain any decision whatsoever. The
order is merely admitting the O.A.
5. The petitioner prayed for setting aside an order of dismissal from
service and consequential relief of reinstatement, which in the
circumstances, in absence of a functional SAT was required to be
2
raised by the writ petitioner by filing writ petitions directly before the
High Court. Such a writ petition, if filed, was to be considered by the
Single Judge Bench dealing with “service matters”.
6. A petitioner may resort to filing a writ petition before the High Court in
respect of matters otherwise amenable before the SAT in very very
exceptional circumstance as per decision of the Apex Court in the case
of T.K Rangarajan Vs. Government of T.N and Ors reported in
(2003) 6 SCC 581. Where the tribunal is non-functional in terms of
decision of the Apex court in the case of Rojer Mathew Vs. South
Indian Bank Limited & Ors reported in (2020) 6 SCC 1, as also
under a very very exceptional circumstance contemplated in T.K
Rangarajan (supra) resort to the writ proceeding is permissible, but
by way of a writ petition, to be considered before the normal bench
dealing with the determination in respect of service matters. The
petitioner’s case falls within such a circumstance and therefore the
proper and appropriate remedy to the writ petitioner is, by way of a
writ petition, to be considered by the Single Judge Bench having
determination over service matters. The writ petitioner has wrongly
filed the writ petition as a WPST which falls within the determination
of a Division Bench rather than filing a WPA subject to consideration
by the Single Judge Bench.
7. In the present case there is no decision of the tribunal whatsoever so
as to make the writ petition amenable to consideration before the
Division Bench taking up writ petitions arising out of decisions of the
3
Tribunal. He has taken the court through the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India reported
in (1997) 3 SCC 261. He submits that in various paragraphs of the
judgment the Apex Court has used the expression ‘decisions’ of the
Tribunal being subject to consideration before a Division Bench. He
took us through paragraph 91, 92, 93 and 99 to submit use of the
expression ‘decision’ is consistent thereby laying emphasis on there
being a decision, as a condition precedent to consideration of the
matter by the Division Bench in exercise of judicial review. Therefore,
a decision on merits is the bedrock for invocation of jurisdiction by the
Division Bench. To buttress his submission he relied upon other
decisions in the case of Mukhtiar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of
Punjab , Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala and Anr ,
Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Ors reported in
(1995) 1 SCC 760, (2019) 20 SCC 143 and (1954) 2 SCC 881.
8. Mr. Galib has also made submissions with reference to the West
Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (for short 1997
Act). He has placed Sections 7, 8 and 11 of the Act.
9. He submits that the 1997 Act was enacted post L. Chandrakumar
(Supra). As per Section 7, the Tribunal exercises the Jurisdiction akin
to the Single Bench of the Hon’ble High Court, as is crystal clear from
the sentence “…exercise all the jurisdiction power and authority
exercisable immediately before that day by any court including the High
Court,…”. Therefore, under Section 8 and 11 of the 1997 Act only a
4
Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court exercising writ jurisdiction
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has the
jurisdiction and that too on an appeal against any “decision” of the
Tribunal. In the instant matter as an External Aid under the Rule of
construction the provisions of 1997 Act enacted for a Tribunal
constituted under Article 323B of the Constitution of India can be
taken aid of in understanding the scheme of The Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985. In the latter Act, it is not stated clearly that the
Tribunal constituted under Articles 323A of the Constitution of India
exercises the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Single Bench of the Hon’ble
High Court.
10. Mr. Galib further submits that by an unreported Judgement in
the case of Runu Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Ors., in WPST
No. 7 of 2025 dated the 10th July, 2025 an Hon’ble Coordinate Bench
of this Court, almost under a similar situation, was pleased to relegate
the matter to the Learned Tribunal for adjudication on merit
inasmuch as there was no decision rendered by the Learned Tribunal
in so far as the merits of the case was concerned when the Writ
Petitioner (Runu Ghosh) invoked the Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble
Division Bench under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. In another unreported Judgment, dated 19th December, 2025
in an Intra-Court appeal, MAT 2211 of 2025 (in the matter of Arnab
Adhikari vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), the Co-ordinate
Bench took note of a dysfunctional/non-functional West Bengal
5
Administrative Tribunal in the State. Their Lordships were pleased to
direct an Appropriate Regular Bench, that is, the Hon’ble Single
Bench of this Court to hear out the matters since the Tribunal is not
functional inasmuch as the party cannot be remediless. Consequent
thereupon an Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court having service
determination/roster took up the issue relating to the West Bengal
Administrative Tribunal.
12. It may be noted that Runu Ghosh (Supra) was delivered at a
point when the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal was functional.
But, since as of date the Learned Tribunal is dysfunctional/non-
functional, the instant Writ Petitioner can very well be relegated to the
Hon’ble Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court, being the Appropriate
Regular Bench, as per the Judgment dated the 19th December, 2025.
13. Mr. Roy, learned advocate for the writ petitioner, on the other
hand, submitted that when the OA’s were filed, the Tribunal was
functional. The writ petitioner therefore had no option but to invoke
the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The petitioners made a specific prayer in
the original application for interim relief. Such relief however, was not
considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order simpliciter
admitting the application. The order dated 09.07.2025 therefore,
amounts to a refusal of interim relief to the writ petitioner which is
very much a ‘decision’ of the Tribunal amenable to the writ
jurisdiction before the Division Bench. The learned Advocate also
refers to the same paragraphs of the Apex Court decision in the case
6
of L. Chandra kumar (supra) to submit that the judgment in most
specific terms states “all decisions” are subject to judicial review by
the High Court having jurisdiction over the Tribunal.
14. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that the situation may have been
different if the petitioner had not invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction
by filing an original application. If the petitioner had not taken
recourse to such a remedy, and the Tribunal was non-functional, the
situation would have been different, requiring consideration of the
petitioner’s writ petitions by the Single Judge Bench dealing with
determination of service matters. However, in the present case, the
writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the SAT the court of first
instance as per the decision in the case of L. Chandra Kumar
(supra). Having failed to obtain any interim relief and thereafter for
want of a functional tribunal, the petitioner was left remediless and
therefore the petitioner rightly filed a writ petition which as per
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of L.
Chandra Kumar (supra) and in the case of Rojer Mathew (supra) is
to be considered by the Division Bench.
15. We have considered the rival submissions. At the very outset we
observe that the issue of maintainability is required to be considered
on a case-to-case basis having regard to the facts and circumstances
leading to filing of the writ petitions, being guided by and observing
the law laid down in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and Rojer Mathew
(supra).
7
16. In the present case, the writ petitioner originally approached the
West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for the relief much
prior to the Tribunal becoming non-functional. The Tribunal condoned
the delay and directed for listing of the matter under the heading
“admission hearing”. Without considering the prayer for interim relief,
the Tribunal admitted the OAs vide orders dated 09.07.2025. The
matter was admitted and directed to be listed under the heading
‘hearing’ it is in this background being aggrieved by non-consideration
of petitioner’s prayer for interim relief that the present writ petition
was filed challenging the decision of the Tribunal dated 09.07.2025. In
the meantime, the Tribunal became non-functional, leaving the
petitioner remediless. We find force in the submission of Mr. M.N. Roy
learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. The writ petitioner had
approached the Court of first instance (SAT) in terms of decision of the
Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra). Interim order
was not passed by the Tribunal and, therefore, the order dated
09.07.2025 was rightly challenged in the present writ proceeding.
17. The submission of the learned State Advocate that the petitioner
was required to file a writ petition to be taken up before the Single
Judge Bench dealing with the determination of service matters,
therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case is
untenable.
18. On a perusal of earlier orders passed in the present proceeding
we find that when the matter was taken up on 24.09.2025, objection
8
was raised by the learned AGP regarding maintainability of the writ
petitions, only on the ground that the issue was pending
consideration before the Tribunal. The limited objection is recorded in
the order of the Court. Thereafter affidavit-in-opposition was filed
wherein also objection on the point of maintainability limited to the
ground that the matter was pending before the Tribunal was raised.
No objection regarding maintainability of the matter before a Division
Bench was raised.
19. Reliance placed by the learned State Advocate on decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mukhtiar Singh
(supra), Rajendra Diwan (supra) and Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra) is
in our opinion misplaced in the present case.
20. Decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath
(supra) arose out of an election petition. Thus, the Apex Court held
that election tribunals are subject to superintendence of the High
Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court
further dealt with an issue whether there was proper grounds for the
certiorari remedy. The judgment in our opinion does not lend any
sustenance to the objection regarding maintainability of the present
writ petition in the present determination.
21. In the case of Mukhtiar Singh (supra) the Apex Court was
considering a fact that the Trial Court judgment contained
“conclusions”, but was devoid of any reasons for arriving at the
conclusion. The Apex Court, therefore, remanded the matter to the
9
Trial Court for its fresh disposal by writing a fresh judgment in
accordance with law. The case arose from a criminal trial. It was in
this context that the Apex Court held that a decision does not merely
mean the conclusion- it embraces within its fold the reasons which
form the basis of the conclusion. Judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Rajendra Diwan (supra) relied upon by the learned State
Counsel also has no application to the facts and circumstances of the
present case. In the present case an objection to the maintainability of
the writ petition before a Division Bench is raised. The judgment
relied upon, on the other hand, mandates a restricted/ limited
interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary power of
superintendence/ judicial review under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. The Court is to be guided by the judgment while
considering the merits of the present writ petition. Therefore,
reference to the report in support of an objection regarding
maintainability is in our opinion misplaced.
22. The above noted submission relying upon 1997 Act, also in our
opinion is out of context in the present case.
23. The decision in the case of Runu Ghosh (supra) relied upon by
the learned State Advocate also does not substantiate the submission
of the learned Advocate regarding non maintainability of the writ
petition before the Division Bench. The writ petitioner therein had put
to challenge a transfer order and the Tribunal did not pass an interim
order. It is under such circumstance the coordinate Bench directed
10
the Tribunal which was then functional as follows:
“In view of the above, WP.ST 7 /2025 stands disposed of
by directing the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in
case no. OA No. 334/2025 (RUNU GHOSH vs. THE
STATE OFR WEST BENGAL AND ORS) to hear the prayer
for interim relief within two weeks from the date of
communication of this order and without granting any
unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.,”
24. The facts and circumstances in which the order was passed in
the case of Runu Ghosh (supra) are totally different from the facts and
circumstances in the present case where the Tribunal is non-
functional.
25. In the case of Arnab Adhikari (supra) also the coordinate
bench was considering a different issue. In that case the writ
petitioners had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by filing a writ petition as a service matter before
the learned Single Judge Bench, since the Tribunal was non-
functional. The petitioners therein had not invoked the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal, the Court of first instance, when it was functional; and
did not challenge an order of the Tribunal, as was done in the present
case. Therefore, the co-ordinate bench, in an intra-court appeal filed
by the writ petitioners therein, against the order dated 15.12.2025
passed in WPA 27821 of 2025, considered the appeal and directed as
follows:
“6. In our considered opinion this order dated 15TH
11
December, 2025, cannot sustain judicial scrutiny for the
simple reason that as a role of thumb it cannot be said
that recruitment process cannot be called in question for
any reason whatsoever. Only after examining the
grounds raised by the appellants showing illegality of the
recruitment process, an opinion can be formed whether
writ can be entertained or not. Secondly, if selection was
pertaining to State Government services, certainly its
recruitment process can also be called in question before
the State Administrative Tribunal. As per section 3(q) read
with section 14 and 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985, the recruitment process can also be called in
question before the tribunal. If tribunal was not
functional, it was obligatory on the part of this court to
hear the matter otherwise the party will be remediless.
7. For those cumulative reasons we set aside the order
dated 15th December 2025.”
26. The decision in the case of Arnab Adhikari (supra), therefore,
also has no relevance to the facts of the present case. In the present
case as noticed above we find that the writ petitioner having failed to
obtain any interim relief, challenged the order dated 09.07.2025
passed by the SAT. The petitioner could not take any further step
before the Tribunal for any remedy/relief, since Tribunal became non-
functional, for want of any Member.
27. We, therefore, overrule the objection on the point of
maintainability raised by the Learned State Advocate. We are,
therefore, of the considered view that having regard to a decision of
the Apex Court in the case Rojer Mathew (supra) the petitioner
12
cannot be left remediless and is entitled to consideration of the matter
on merits. In the present case an order dated 09.07.2025, passed by
the Tribunal could not be put to challenge before a learned Single-
Judge Bench.
28. The issue of maintainability, therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case is decided in favour of the writ
petitioner. The matter be listed the other side of the ensuing summer
vacation for further consideration under the appropriate heading on
29th June, 2026.
29. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied
to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal
formalities.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
I agree.
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)
13
