Satish Kumar Jaiswal vs. Designated Committee , Kolkata And Ors

Held

The Court held that the learned Single Judge should have decided the writ petition on its merits rather than disposing of it by merely directing the consideration of the appellant's representation. The reasoning was that affidavits had been filed by both parties, and the respondents had already made their stand clear in their affidavit-in-opposition. In such circumstances, a direction to consider the representation might not be effective. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated June 29, 2022, and restored the writ petition to its original file for hearing and decision on merits by the learned Single Judge. The Court also directed that no coercive action should be taken against the appellant until the writ petition is heard and disposed of, continuing the interim protection granted earlier.

Facts

The appellant, Satish Kumar Jaiswal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated June 29, 2022, which directed the concerned authority to consider and dispose of his representation within a reasonable time. This appeal is against that order. The appellant's grievance stemmed from his inability to avail the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Disputes Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS), due to alleged technical glitches on the CBIC portal. He had made representations to the respondents regarding these issues, which he claimed were not adequately considered. The writ court, initially, had directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition and explain the delay in considering the representations, noting that the appellant's allegations of technical glitches were not necessarily unfounded. However, the writ petition was ultimately disposed of by directing the consideration of the representation, which the appellant contested.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in disposing of the writ petition by merely directing the consideration of the appellant's representation, instead of deciding the matter on merits, given that affidavits had been filed by both parties and the core dispute regarding technical glitches and eligibility for the SVLDRS was already before the court? Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant argued that after the filing of affidavits and the respondents clarifying their stand, the writ petition should have been decided on its merits. A mere direction to consider the representation would not yield a proper result as the respondents had already taken a clear stance in their opposition affidavit. The appellant relied on the previous order of the writ court dated November 25, 2021, which acknowledged the possibility of technical glitches and directed the respondents to file an affidavit. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the revenue or state authorities in this specific appeal. However, their position was implicitly represented by their filing of an affidavit-in-opposition in the original writ petition.