The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that disputed questions of fact between private parties in sectors like film and television cannot be adjudicated under constitutional writ jurisdiction; such matters require alternative remedies. This judgment follows established precedent, sharply restricting the use of writs in complex, fact-intensive commercial or industry disputes, and is binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WPA/7565/2025 of ABHISHEK SAHA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CNR WBCHCA0151942025 |
| 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 |
|
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law, Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether High Court’s writ jurisdiction can resolve disputes with seriously contested facts between parties in the film and television industry. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that writ jurisdiction is not appropriate for adjudicating inter se disputes involving hotly contested and disputed facts. All factual allegations and claims were disputed by the respondents, making it impossible for the constitutional court to resolve them in writ proceedings. The proper remedy lies elsewhere—such as pursuing regular civil or other legal proceedings. The State is not obliged to resolve purely private disputes within the industry, and there is no responsibility on the State to ensure the smooth functioning of the industry in such circumstances. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The writ petition related to issues arising in the film and television industry of West Bengal. Attempts were made to resolve the dispute through an administrative committee, but objections arose. The State declined responsibility for resolving the private dispute. Each fact/allegation was strongly disputed, making writ adjudication impossible. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (as analogous precedent) |
| Follows | Upholds established principle limiting writ jurisdiction where facts are disputed |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Restates that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available to resolve disputes involving hotly contested facts, especially in commercial and industry-specific contexts.
- The State has no obligation to act as an arbitrator or facilitator in private inter se disputes in the film and television sector.
- Lawyers must pursue alternate remedies outside writ jurisdiction when the dispute is factually complex or contested.
- Setting up administrative committees or reports by government officials will not suffice where the dispute is not amenable to writ relief due to factual disagreements.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that all claims and facts asserted by the petitioner in respect of industry functioning were directly and seriously disputed by the respondents.
- Referred to the limits of writ jurisdiction: constitutional courts do not decide matters with seriously contested facts or complicated evidence assessment.
- The attempt by the Principal Secretary to resolve the dispute through a specialized committee was neither binding nor effective, as the respondents raised substantive objections.
- The State is not responsible for intervening in or arbitrating private disputes within the film and television industry, nor for ensuring the resolution of such industry disputes.
- The Court dismissed the petition outright, leaving all parties free to pursue other “appropriate remedies” available in law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Raised disputes and sought judicial intervention regarding functioning and disputes in the film and television industry.
- Sought resolution of the problems faced by the petitioner through writ jurisdiction.
Respondent No. 5
- Raised serious objections to the committee process and the State’s involvement.
- Disputed all material facts and allegations made by the petitioner.
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4
- Disputed each and every fact, claim, and allegation asserted by the petitioner.
State
- Denied any responsibility to resolve private or inter se industry disputes.
- Asserted that the State is not obliged to ensure smooth functioning of the industry or resolve such disputes via writ proceedings.
Factual Background
The dispute arose within the film and television industry of West Bengal. The petitioner brought a writ petition seeking judicial intervention to remedy issues faced in the industry. In an effort to resolve the dispute, the Principal Secretary from the Information and Cultural Affairs Department formed a committee of industry experts. Respondents objected both to the process and the findings, disputing all relevant facts and claims. The State explicitly distanced itself from resolving private inter-party disputes. Given the intensely disputed factual matrix, the Court concluded writ jurisdiction was not maintainable.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court construed the powers under writ jurisdiction (Article 226) as not extending to disputes involving determination of hotly contested facts between private parties.
- No specific alternative statutory provisions were interpreted, but the judgment reinforces jurisprudence on the scope and limits of Article 226 relief.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Referral to a specialized administrative committee (comprising industry figures) for potential resolution was attempted, but the process was non-binding and ultimately not accepted by all parties.
- The Court clarified that recommendations or findings by such administrative bodies do not substitute for judicial determination where facts are disputed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision strongly reaffirms the settled law limiting writ jurisdiction in cases involving disputed private facts.