Md. Naziruddin and Another Vs State of West Bengal and Another

Calcutta High Court 11 Sep 2009 Writ Petition 16175 (W) of 2009
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition 16175 (W) of 2009

Hon'ble Bench

Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J; Biswanath Somadder, J

Advocates

Idris Ali, Aparna Samanta and Rajasree Chatterjee, for the Appellant; Balai Chandra Ray, Sandip Srimani, Pratik Dhar and Jayeeta Chakraborty, for the State, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Dismissed

Judgement Text

Translate:

1. We have perused the writ petition. We have also heard the impatient submissions of Mr. Ali. Learned counsel vehemently argues that the land

allotment in favour of the individuals or the companies where the Vedic Village is situated was illegal and contrary to law. It is also submitted that

the land has been taken away from poor persons by unscrupulous method by use of undesirable elements. It is also submitted that one of the

Ministers of this state is involved in the allotment of the land. Learned counsel also submitted that the land belongs to all the citizens of West

Bengal. It is not the personal or private property of either the Chief Minister or of any individual Minister. Learned counsel further submits that the

petitioners are entitled to maintain the public interest litigation. It is submitted that the facts and circumstances of this case are even worse than the

facts of the Nandigram case. Therefore, the matter ought to be entertained as a public interest litigation.

2. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of West Bengal submits that necessary proceedings under the appropriate law have been

taken against all the suspects. It is also submitted that the State of West Bengal shall make endeavour to ensure that all the guilty persons are

punished in accordance with law.

3. Upon consideration of the entire matter it appears that the writ petition has been filed by two persons, namely Md. Naziruddin, being the

petitioner No. 1, and Md. Mofizul Hoque, being the petitioner No. 2. So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he has described himself as the

Secretary of Hatiyara Janasanjog Kendra, a registered organization expressing the cause of inhabitants of Hatiyara/Rajarhat. The petitioner No. 2

has described himself to be a member of All India Minority Forum, a philanthropic organization espousing the cause of minorities. Both of them

have stated that they are engaged in social welfare activities. They have, however, not bothered to give details or particulars of the nature of the

social welfare activities carried out by them, nor have they cared to disclose their locus standi, apart from what has been stated above. It is, thus,

patently clear and obvious that the writ petitioners chose to file this writ petition, at an apt time, to join the publicity band-wagon which, of late,

adorns the front pages of the local newspapers and the television screens, because of the recent episode which took place in what is commonly

known as the ''Vedic Village''. Neither such publicity-seeking petitioners ought to be encouraged to bring out such writ petitions in the name of

''public interest litigation'' nor should the courts hesitate to nip such frivolous and misconceived writ petitions, brought out for oblique purposes, at

its bud. We, therefore, see no reason to issue any directions and the writ petition stands dismissed.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Reviews Forest Rights Act Protecting Livelihoods
Oct
24
2025

Story

Supreme Court Reviews Forest Rights Act Protecting Livelihoods
Read More
Patna HC: Promotions Valid Only from Actual or DPC Date
Oct
24
2025

Story

Patna HC: Promotions Valid Only from Actual or DPC Date
Read More