I. P. Mukerji, J. - (1.) The facts of a case are most important. The law to be applied depends on established facts. Even at the prima facie stage the facts need to be tentatively proved to justify an order. Without proof of facts, conclusive or prima facie, blind application of the law results in manifest injustice, as has happened in this case. Without any hesitation, I make it absolutely clear that in our adversarial system of justice, establishing facts is the duty of the learned lawyer and normally, it is no part of the duty of a Judge to embark on an enquiry into the facts and come to a finding. It is only on the basis of the facts as proved before him by a lawyer that a Judge, in our country comes to a decision, by application of the law. In this case, at the interim stage, the true facts were concealed from the court.
(2.) At the interim stage, the plain and simple allegation made in court, by learned Counsel for the petitioners seems to have been that his clients were the owners of the subject huge parcel of land, part of which was wrested by the private respondent nos. 8 & 9 from them. In that wrested portion of the land a brick field along with a brick kiln was set up by them which was illegal and caused great annoyance to the entire neighbourhood and highly polluted the atmosphere. The brick field and the brick kiln were started without taking the necessary approvals, permissions etc and without complying with the statutory requirements.
(3.) When this writ application was moved before Mr. Justice Dasadhikari on 4th August, 2014 he ordered the BL & LRO to file a report before him as to whether the brick field and brick kiln were being operated by the writ petitioners legally or not. On 8th December, 2014 the BL & LRO, Sandeshkhali-1, Nazat, North 24 Parganas submitted a report that, indeed the brick field and brick kiln were being run illegally. On that basis of this report on 18th December, 2014 his lordship passed an interim order stopping running of the brick field and brick kiln till the disposal of the writ application. The private respondents preferred an appeal from this interim order before a Division Bench of this court (MAT 30 of 2015 CAN 322 of 2015) which on 27th January, 2015 dismissed the appeal, on the basis of the said report.;