RAMAPADA GANGOPADHYAY @ GANGULY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : At the outset, the respondents take a preliminary objection as to the present writ petition not being maintainable in the Original Side but ought to have been filed in the Appellate Side of this Court, in view of the parties residing, as well as the cause of action having arisen, in Burdwan.

(2.) In answer, learned Counsel for the petitioners cites a judgment reported at AIR 1980 Supreme Court 303 (Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone) wherein it is held, inter alia, that a difference between a mandatory rule and a directory rule is that while the former must be strictly observed, in the case of the latter, substantial compliance may sufficiently achieve the object regarding which the rule is enacted.

(3.) In conjunction with the above judgment, learned Counsel for the petitioners also cites a judgment reported at 1991 (2) CLJ 290 (Sakti Steel Traders v. Ashok Chakroborty and Ors.) wherein it was held, inter alia, so far as the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned, the Appellate or Original Side Rules of a particular High Court are unknown. The administrative rules of practice adopted for division of work amongst the Judges are directory and do not confer any right on the litigants. Procedural law was held not to be mandatory and that the Writ Rules framed by the Full Court of this Court are directory and not mandatory.