A writ petition consolidating challenges to three separate assessment orders is not maintainable; the court reaffirmed the requirement for separate proceedings in such cases. The decision upholds existing precedent and provides binding authority on writ petition maintainability before the Calcutta High Court, especially in cases involving utility assessments.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/20192/2025 of JAFAR AHMED @ JAFAR AHMED MOLLA Vs CESC LIMITED AND ANR. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0407332025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (Justice Kausik Chanda) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Calcutta High Court |
| Type of Law | Procedural — Writ Practice |
| Questions of Law | Whether a single writ petition challenging multiple, distinct assessment orders is maintainable. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that a single writ petition cannot be used to consolidate challenges against three separate assessment orders, emphasizing that each order must be challenged independently. The court expressed surprise that a common pleading was used for distinct orders, underscoring the procedural impropriety. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable. No substantive arguments on merits were entertained in view of this threshold objection. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought to challenge three different assessment orders of CESC Limited through a single writ petition. The court noted this consolidation and dismissed the petition as not maintainable without going into the merits. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and writs before Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court expressly held that it is procedurally improper to challenge multiple, separate assessment orders in a single writ petition.
- Separate writ petitions must be filed for distinct assessment orders, with individual pleadings addressing each.
- Petitions violating this principle risk outright dismissal at the threshold, without scrutiny of merits.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court focused solely on the maintainability of the writ petition.
- Observed that challenging three distinct assessment orders through a unified pleading was procedurally untenable.
- Held that each order requires an independent challenge; consolidation in a single writ is not permissible.
- As this procedural flaw went to the root of maintainability, the court dismissed the writ petition outright, refraining from examining merits or any further submissions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought to challenge three separate assessment orders of CESC Limited within a single writ petition.
Respondent (CESC Limited)
- No specific arguments recorded in the order regarding maintainability or merits.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a single writ petition before the Calcutta High Court, seeking to challenge three separate assessment orders issued by CESC Limited. No factual background or details regarding the nature or content of the assessment orders were provided in the judgment. The court’s order confined itself to addressing the procedural propriety of challenging multiple orders via a single petition, and dismissed the matter for want of maintainability.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were specifically discussed or interpreted in the judgment. The decision turned solely on the procedural propriety relating to the filing of writ petitions.
Procedural Innovations
The judgment did not introduce any new procedural innovations but reaffirmed the established practice that each assessment order must be challenged through a separate writ petition.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court reaffirmed the established procedural practice regarding maintainability of writ petitions and did not create new law.