The Calcutta High Court clarified that writ jurisdiction does not extend to resolving inter se private disputes involving disputed facts within the film and television industry, thereby upholding established precedent on the limits of constitutional writ remedies. This judgment confirms that such matters should be adjudicated in the appropriate civil forum and reinforces the judiciary’s reluctance to intervene in commercial disputes with contested factual issues. It serves as binding authority for subordinate courts within West Bengal and as persuasive precedent elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WPA/7554/2025 of INDRANIL ROYCHOWDHURY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CNR WBCHCA0151312025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within West Bengal; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Constitutional / Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether the writ court can resolve disputed private/commercial issues especially where facts are contested. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that where disputes are purely private (inter se parties) and hinge on contested questions of fact, writ jurisdiction is not maintainable. The judiciary is neither obliged nor equipped to resolve complex factual disputes, especially in an industry-specific (film and television) commercial context. The Court reaffirmed that the State need not intervene in such private disputes and that parties must seek appropriate remedies in law outside the writ jurisdiction. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought intervention from the Court to address problems faced within the film and television industry. The State set up a Committee following recommendations from the Principal Secretary, but respondents objected to this process and denied the facts alleged by the petitioner. The State disclaimed any obligation to resolve private commercial disputes within the industry, and all material facts were heavily disputed between the parties. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to adjudicate disputed private/commercial factual issues, especially in areas like the film and television industry.
- Clarifies that the State is not obliged to intervene in or resolve inter se commercial disputes between private parties.
- Directs parties to pursue appropriate remedies in alternative legal forums (such as civil courts or arbitration).
- The mere existence of an administrative recommendation (e.g., a Committee set up by a State department) does not give rise to a cause for writ intervention if facts remain in dispute and the dispute is private in nature.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court found that the core dispute centered around claims and counterclaims between private parties in the film and television industry, with each fact hotly contested.
- It noted that even after an attempt at administrative resolution (recommendation by the Principal Secretary suggesting a Committee), substantive objections by respondents persisted, and the State declined any formal responsibility for resolving the matter.
- The Court expressly held that writ jurisdiction is not intended for, nor suited to, determination of complex, disputed facts arising from private/commercial relationships.
- The judgment highlights the constitutional and practical limits of judicial review in the context of private industry disputes, reaffirming that such matters must be resolved in suitable alternative forums.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought the intervention of the High Court to address issues faced in the film and television industry.
Respondent No. 5
- Raised serious objections regarding the administrative recommendation (Committee setup).
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4
- Disputed each and every fact, claim, and allegation raised by the petitioner; objected to the recommended process.
State
- Submitted that the State is not obliged to resolve inter se commercial disputes between parties; denied any responsibility for ensuring industry functioning in this context.
Factual Background
The petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court under writ jurisdiction seeking relief concerning the functioning of the film and television industry in West Bengal. After an initial administrative process led by the Principal Secretary (Information and Cultural Affairs Department), which included an opportunity of hearing and the suggestion to constitute a Committee of eminent industry persons, the respondents objected to both the process and the underlying facts. The State declined any obligation to intervene, with all material facts being heavily disputed, resulting in the writ petition’s dismissal.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment addresses the scope and limitation of constitutional writ jurisdiction (Article 226 of the Constitution of India).
- Emphasised that writ courts are not competent to adjudicate private disputes involving disputed facts, particularly when alternative remedies exist.
- No specific statutory provision was interpreted expansively or restrictively beyond reiterating the settled law on maintainability under Article 226.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations, guidelines, or changes to existing procedural requirements were introduced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed the existing principle that writ courts do not resolve disputed facts or private commercial disputes.