CESC LIMITED Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Writ Petitioners, C.E.S.C. Limited and another (hereinafter referred to as petitioners), have prayed the Court for an order

(2.) On the writ application (hereinafter referred to as application) being moved, the learned Counsel for the contending respondents had raised a preliminary point of law as to the maintainability of the writ application and jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the same on the submissions made. It had been submitted by the learned Counsel that the question of maintainability and jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the application may first be decided before entertaining the same and issuing any direction therein. The aforesaid point having been seriously urged on the submissions made, I had proposed to take up and hear the aforesaid question of maintainability and jurisdiction before entertaining the application. I had accordingly heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for both sides at length on different dates on the points so raised.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the contending respondents that the writ application is mainly and inevitably directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 1995 passed by the respondent No. 6-The West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (for 5 short Taxation Tribunal), being Annexure 'E' to the writ application, on an earlier writ application filed by the petitioner No. 1 herein. The prayer (a) to the instant writ application challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 5, 6 and 14 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1987) on the ground stated in ground No. VIII thereof is only an endeavour to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of this Court. It was submitted that the petitioner had duly participated in the earlier writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after being transferred to the Taxation Tribunal from the High Court, and had allowed the same to be disposed of. No such plea regarding the constitutional validity of Sections 5, 6 and 14 of the Act of 1987 had been raised by the petitioner herein. The said plea is taken herein for the first time by the petitioners after being unsuccessful in the aforesaid earlier writ application only as a device to avoid the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 22-3-1995 passed by the Taxation Tribunal, which is clearly barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. The aforesaid impugned judgment and order of the Taxation Tribunal is thus sought to be challenged by the petitioners in the instant writ application in this round about way by sadly seeking to clothe the High Court with the jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ application in view of the prayer(s) thereof on the ground stated in ground VIII thereto.