Calcutta High Court: In a case where the petitioner filed a public interest writ petition to challenge the appointment of the Chief Administrative Officer, a Division bench comprising of T.S. Sivagnanam, CJ., and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J., rejected the same on the grounds of prematurity and the lack of prior exhaustion of available remedies.
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed a PIL challenging the appointment of a private respondent as the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the West Bengal State Council of Technical and Vocational Education and Skill Development (WBSCTVESD). The petitioner’s primary contention was that the notification issued by the Governor on 23-02-2021 lacked a notification number and did not mention any approval from the Government of West Bengal.
The Court held that the grounds presented by the petitioner for challenging the 2021 notification were premature. The petitioner had not approached the appropriate authorities nor obtained necessary information before filing the writ petition. The Court emphasized that its role was not to gather information on behalf of the petitioner to support his challenge to the impugned proceedings.
The Court concluded that the writ petition could not be entertained at that juncture due to its premature nature and dismissed the same.
[Arnab Ghosh v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2293, order dated 07-08-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Partha Chakraborty, Counsel for the Petitioner;
Sk. Md. Galib and Mr. Siddique Mallick, Counsel for the Respondent/State.
