The Calcutta High Court affirms that administrative orders must be executed by the authority designated by the Court, quashing a transfer memo issued by a subordinate official in derogation of its order.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/15602/2025 of SHILPI ORAW Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0319642025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single-Judge |
| Precedent Value | Affirmatory (upholds existing principle of compliance with Court directions) |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law / Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether a decision on a transfer application made by an official not authorized by a prior Court order is void |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner’s transfer application was to be decided by the Chairman of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission within a specified time under order dated 10-12-2024; instead, the Secretary issued a memo on 24-01-2025 without authority. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All government authorities and subordinate officers under Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering enforcement of specific Court-directed administrative actions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Strict adherence to the identity of the authority named in a Court’s direction: no substitution or delegation without fresh leave.
- Administrative orders issued by an unauthorized official, even if within the same department, can be quashed in writ proceedings.
- Courts will confine their quashing relief to the non-compliant act while leaving the substantive merits for re-adjudication by the proper authority.
- Litigants should ensure that relief sought in a writ petition tracks the exact mandate of the proposed decision-maker.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Identification of Issue
The sole issue was whether the Secretary’s memo dated 24-01-2025—issued in derogation of the Court’s 10-12-2024 order—was valid. - Principle of Compliance
The Court reiterated that its directions must be obeyed by the authority specifically named; any act by a different functionary is unauthorized. - Application to Facts
The Secretary was not empowered by the order to decide the transfer; hence, the memo was set aside as void. - Scope of Relief
Only the impugned memo was quashed; all other aspects of the transfer application were left open for fresh decision by the Chairman within the Court-directed timeframe.
Factual Background
In December 2024, this Court directed the Chairman of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission to decide the petitioner’s transfer application within a specified period. Despite that order, the Secretary of the Commission issued a decision-memo on 24 January 2025. The petitioner challenged this memo by filing a writ petition under Article 226, contending that the Secretary lacked authority per the earlier direction.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing principle of strict compliance with Court-designated authority upheld.