B.M. Mitra, J. - (1.) In this writ petition a challenge is thrown with regard to the validity or propriety of an impugned notice annexed to the petition vide Annexure B' It appears from the perusal of the impugned notice that the same has been purported to be issued under provisions of Section 50, 57 read with Section 21B and 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Mr. Manna, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended before this Court that the concerned authority cannot direct a spot enquiry under the cover of the purported enquiry. In support of the same Mr. Manna has placed reliance in respect of a decision reported in 1981 (1) CHN page 212 in the case of Md. Saha Alam Fakir & ors. v. The State of West Bengal & ors. where it has been held that Section 57 of the Act specifically gives some powers under the Code of Civil Procedure to the officers under the Land Reforms Act for discharging their statutory duties but the power to hold spot enquiry has not been expressly given. Mr. Manna has relied on the said observation contained in the aforesaid judgement and accordingly it has been contended by Mr. Manna with his usual force that the impugned notice suffered from intrinsic element of infirmity. This Court after having come across in the recent period with lot of orders where spot enquiry was directed and it has having its doubt as to whether the authority concerned is conferred with the said power to hold spot enquiry or not. In the aforesaid judgement it has been specifically observed that power to hold spot enquiry has not been expressly given. This Court has appointed Mr. Santimoy Panda, the learned Advocate, as an amicus curiae and his assistance has been greatly appreciated. Mr. Panda in order to arrive at his opinion has referred to the provisions of West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadars) Rules, 1956 and he has referred to Rule 6(4) of the said Rules incorporated by Notification No. 3191 L. Ref/20R-12/81 dated 31.11.81 and it appears from the perusal of the same that any officer or authority proceeding to dispose of such application shall fix a date for consideration of the application and after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard shall dispose of the application, the date fixed by him for consideration. The attention of the court has also been drawn by Mr. Panda to rule 14-l(iii)(b)(i) where it has been held that a prescribe authority appointed under Section 50 of the Act may, on application or on his own motion, record the name of bargadar in record-of-rights after holding an inquiry and after giving the interested parties and opportunity of being heard. In view of the citation being followed as incorporated under Rule 6 and Rule 14-1 as contained above in the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, this Court feels that the premise as formulated in the cited decisions as referred to by Mr. Manna suffers from the principles of mischief of per as the premise on its ratio of law has been formulated if the power to hold enquiry has not been expressly given. Accordingly, this court cannot but hold that the above noted decision cannot have any binding force or effect after the incorporation of the aforesaid rules pursuant to the notification as issued. This court accordingly for the reasons as indicated above cannot accede to the submission of Mr. Manna though it expresses its appreciation for Mr. Mannas advocacy. This court also expresses its gratitude for the rendition of services by Mr. Santimoy Panda in the capacity as amicus curiae.
(2.) Subject to the reasons as stated above, this Court does not feel inclined to interfere with the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(3.) In view of the dismissal of the writ petition at the motion stage, this Court is not in a position to grant any interim order at this stage. But this Court by way of unusual labourage has favoured Mr. Mannas client by making him available a plain copy of the order at the earliest.;