KANHAIYALAL SARAF Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage without user of any affidavit since in view of emphatic assertion made by Mr. Sen appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6 the matter does not brook for any delay. Accordingly, some written instructions were put forward before this court and the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State has also put forward his written instructions. In view of non-user of any affidavit, there has been no occasion for traversing the material allegations contained in the instant petition and, as such any of the allegations contained therein will not be treated as to have been admitted. The entire matter is being insisted upon for being heard at the stage of 'Listed Motion' since extension of interim order has been opposed by the contesting respondents. This court has become a party to pass initial interim orders and it will refer to the reasons which have prompted this court at the material point of time to pass such interim orders. However, in view of exhaustive hearing given to the parties at the risk of dislocating whole day's work, this court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the motion stage.

(2.) In the instant petition, there has been, inter alia, a substantial challenge thrown with regard to two notices being annexure 'D' and 'E' appended thereto from a perusal whereof it appears that those have been passed under the provisions of section 3(1) coupled with section 4(1) (a) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. It appears from the tenor of submissions of Mr. Kundu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that he wants to challenge the impugned notices on two fold grounds, namely, on the basis of the allegation of alleged non-service of notice on the petitioner and also on the ground that there is no public purpose involved in the initiation of the said proceedings pursuant to the notices as impugned. It has been submitted by Mr. Kundu that the question of public purpose should be taken up first as, according to him, if he succeeds on the said point, then the question of non-service of notice can be relegated to the background and it may pale into the comparative insignificance.

(3.) Be that as it may, this court proposes to consider the basic limbs of the foundation of submissions of Mr. Kundu on the two fold grounds as aforesaid and it tends to proceed on the basis first about the scrutiny of whatsoever importance may be attached to the same about the alleged non-service of notice.