Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The principal grievances of the petitioner are in respect of an Order dated October 25, 2017 passed in W.P. No. 22541 (W) of 2017 (Sri Pranab Agasty & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and the actions taken on the basis thereof resulting in the reconstitution of the governing body of the respondent no. 12.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioners of W.P. No. 22541 (W) of 2017 (for the sake of convenience referred to as "Pranab") had misled the Hon'ble Court in passing the order. The society, in respect of which grievances were levelled, in the writ petition of Pranab, was not made a party. He refers to an earlier writ petition filed by one of the petitioners of Pranab being W.P. No. 11479 (W) of 2016 (Pranab Agasty v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and submits that, the society is a party therein. Directions were issued by an Order dated July 11, 2016 passed in W.P. No. 11479 (W) of 2016. Pursuant to such directions, the Secretary of the Department of Industry, Commercial Enterprises had passed diverse orders, one of which is April 21, 2017. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, the Secretary had identified various problems and had suggested various measures. Suppressing the developments and not making the society a party respondent in the writ petition of Pranab, the Order dated October 25, 2017 was obtained. Such order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice so far as the present petitioners are concerned. It is not the fault of the Court that, the present petitioners were not heard. The society was not made a party in the writ petition of Pranab. Therefore, the present petitioners had been denied an opportunity to be represented at the hearing of the writ petition of Pranab. He has submitted that, the writ petitioners of Pranab were aware of the disputes and the fact that, the present writ petitioners are necessary and proper parties in respect of a petition relating to the affairs of the society. They had deliberately not made the present petitioners parties in such proceedings. Referring to the Order dated October 25, 2017 passed in the writ petition of Pranab, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, such order was passed on the basis of submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the State. He has submitted that, it was the obligation of both the learned Advocates for the petitioners as well as the State to bring to the notice of the Court that, the society was not a party to the proceedings. The State had no authority in law to fix the date for holding an election of the society. The date of election of the society is to be fixed in an Annual General Meeting of the society. The State had acted beyond its powers in suggesting the date and, thereafter, allowing the election to be held. He has submitted that, the Order dated October 25, 2017 being obtained by fraud and such order not having any foundational basis, all steps taken pursuant to such order including the supersession of the committee should be set aside. The position as on October 25, 2017 prior to the passing of such order should be restored.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has referred to the provisions of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 particularly Sections 22 and 23 thereof in support of his contention that, neither the petitioners of the Pranab nor the State had the authority to fix the date of the election and conduct the election of the society with regard thereto. According to the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, there has been a grave miscarriage of justice with regard to the Order dated October 25, 2017 passed in the writ petition of Pranab. He has relied upon (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shri Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr., 1987 AIR(SC) 943), (Shivdeo Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 1963 AIR(SC) 1909) and (Smt. Diblu Naskar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2009 4 CalLT 301 (HC)) in support of his contentions. He has also relied upon (A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr., 1988 2 SCC 602) in support of the contention that, when the Court finds that it has committed any mistake, it should correct the error.;