Calcutta High Court
WP.ST/48/2026 of CHAYAN BHATTACHARJEE Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 16 September 2026
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Appellate Side 16.09.2026 S/L 22 Court No. 4 (Naba) W.P.S.T. 48 of 2026 Chayan Bhattacharjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. M. N. Roy, Mr. G. Haldar ...for the Petitioner Mr. Guddu Singh, Mr. Sourav Haldar ...for the State 1. The
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
16.09.2026
S/L 22
Court No. 4
(Naba)
W.P.S.T. 48 of 2026
Chayan Bhattacharjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. M. N. Roy,
Mr. G. Haldar
...for the Petitioner
Mr. Guddu Singh,
Mr. Sourav Haldar
...for the State
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The Original Application as per submission of the learned advocate for the writ petitioner was filed nearly a month prior to the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) becoming non-functional in September, 2025.
2. He submits that the petitioner is rendered remediless for want of a functional Tribunal.
3. Under the circumstance, placing reliance on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 read with the later Judgement in the case of Rojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2020) 6 SCC 1, he submits that he is entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this
Court for the relief for which he approached the Tribunal.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner, however, does not dispute a fact that he has not assailed any order of the Tribunal in the present proceeding. He, therefore, craves leave of this Court to avail the remedy before the learned Single Bench dealing with determination of service matters.
5. Such leave in the present case cannot be allowed, as long as the pending Original Application bearing O.A. No. 483 of 2025 is on the records of the Tribunal.
6. For enabling the petitioner to avail remedy before the learned Single Judge, we dispose of the Original Application bearing O.A. No. 483 of 2025.
7. We are disposing of the Original Application in the present proceeding, since it is submitted by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner that for want of a functional Tribunal, he is not even in a position to withdraw the pending Original Application for availing remedy before the learned Single Judge Bench.
8. O.A. No. 483 of 2025 accordingly stands disposed of.
9. The Writ Petition is also disposed of with liberty to avail remedy in accordance with law.
10. Copy of this order be communicated to the Registry of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal for information and consequential action.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
(Partha Pratim Roy, J.)