High Court reaffirms that disposal of writ petitions by permitting petitioners to submit representations to concerned authorities and directing administrative consideration does not entail adjudication of factual disputes or merits. The disposal maintains established precedent and is binding in administrative law disputes, reaffirming the summary procedural framework under writ jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WPA/23500/2025 of DIPANKAR DAS AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CNR WBCHCA0465182025 |
| Date of Registration | 24-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Calcutta High Court and persuasive for like cases in other jurisdictions |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law, Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India |
| Questions of Law | Whether the writ court can dispose a petition by granting liberty to submit a representation to administrative authorities and direct its expeditious consideration. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that summary disposal of writ petitions by allowing petitioners to approach the appropriate administrative authority with a representation is permissible. The court reiterated that such an order does not amount to adjudication of factual disputes or the merits of the allegations. The administrative authority is directed to consider the representation in accordance with law, ensuring remedies are available at the administrative level before judicial interference. Allegations in the petition are expressly noted as not having been admitted. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners complained of being restrained by private respondents from entering their residential house and alleged police inaction. Both parties had filed complaints resulting in charge sheets. The petitioners sought liberty to represent their grievances to the third respondent administrative authority. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and administrative authorities within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, particularly in matters involving administrative redress and writ disposal at the threshold |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that where factual disputes exist and administrative remedies have not been exhausted, the writ court may permit petitioners to submit a representation to the appropriate authority.
- Reaffirms that such disposal does not amount to an adjudication on the merits of the petition or admission of allegations.
- Lawyers may seek similar relief in writ petitions where immediate intervention is not feasible due to incomplete service or disputed facts.
- Emphasizes the need for petitioners to approach administrative authorities with their grievances before seeking further judicial intervention.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that both parties had filed cases resulting in completion of investigation and filing of charge sheets.
- The petitioners’ grievance was that they were unable to access their residence and had repeatedly complained to the police without effective remedy.
- The Court noted that service upon private respondents was incomplete but that the State’s report was on record.
- The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to make a comprehensive representation to the third respondent, who was directed to consider the same and take necessary action per law.
- The Court explicitly stated that no allegations in the writ were deemed admitted, as no affidavit was called for.
- The writ was disposed of without costs and without entering into the merits or factual contentions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged restraint by private respondents from entering their residential house.
- Approached police authorities on multiple occasions without effective response.
- Sought liberty to submit a comprehensive representation to the administrative authority for redressal.
Respondent (State)
- Reported that specific cases had been filed by both parties, investigations completed, and charge sheets submitted.
Factual Background
The petitioners alleged that they were being restrained from entering their residential house by the private respondents. Although complaints were made to the police by both sides, resulting in charge sheets, the petitioners asserted inaction on part of the authorities. They approached the High Court for relief, seeking permission to submit a comprehensive representation to the relevant administrative authority.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment proceeds under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court as provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- The Court indicated the limited scope of writ interference at a threshold stage where representation to the administrative authority may suffice, especially when factual disputes exist and alternative remedies have not been exhausted.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reinforces the practice of disposing of writ petitions at threshold, especially where service on parties is incomplete but administrative remedy is still open.
- Specifies that no affidavit was called for, and therefore, allegations are not deemed admitted, safeguarding against any inference of fact-finding by the court at this stage.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The established procedure regarding writ disposal and grant of liberty for administrative representation has been affirmed.