SANTANU MUKHERJEE Vs. ASIT BARAN CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.3.97 passed by a learned single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the petitioner/respondent was disposed of by directing :

(2.) The appellants are said to be the owners of the premises in question. The said premises had admittedly been mortgaged in favour of the State. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Barrackpore, purported to be acting in terms of the Memo dated 16th July, 1992 issued by the Assistant Secretary, Home (P & AR) passed an order dated 10.8.92 as contained in annexure "A" to the writ application which reads thus:

(3.) The purported direction made by the Assistant Secretary, Home (P & AR) appears to have been issued at the instance of the appellant and the subsequent action taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer by directing the Inspector-in-Charge, Khardah Police Station is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and/or authority of law. The said direction being violative of the principle of natural justice was liable to be set aside. It further appears that in relation to the premises in question a suit was also pending. An order of injunction had also been passed. Despite the same, the aforementioned Memo No. 309/Con. dated 10.8.92 had been issued. This case depicts a sordid state of affairs. The Sub-Divisional Officer has acted in a high handed manner. A contention is sought to be raised that the writ petitioner had vacated the premises out of his own volition. Such a contention coming from the mouth of the appellant herein should be rejected. We do not find any reason as to why such a contention was raised. The appellant herein admittedly had mortgaged the property. He had merely a right of redemption. However we cannot but deprecate the action on the part of the public functionary in such a high handed manner and we are of the opinion that the learned trial Judge has rightly issued the direction in his judgment under appeal. The appellant, in our opinion, has no locus-standi to maintain this appeal as admittedly he was not in possession thereof. If the premises is a Government premises which according to the learned trial Judge was not and the directions issued by the learned trial Judge against the State it was not for the appellant to question the correctness or otherwise of the said order only on the ground that he may exercise his right of redemption.