- (1.) This writ petition is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner No. 1 is a Member Secretary of the Association for protection of Democratic Rights of Society which was stated to have been founded in 1972. The petitioner No. 2 is the son of one of the most departed prominent leaders of Naxalite movement in India, namely, Sri Charu Majumder, since deceased. It has been averred in the connected writ petition that there were serious encounters between the members of the said political party with the State Police and as a result of which there was commission of mass genocide on behalf of the Police during the period from 1968 to 1972. It was further alleged that oppression was let loose in unbounded proportions as a result of which there was alleged commission of genocide of the supporters of the particular political group. Many illustrative references have been given in the body of the petition and this Court does not intend to give a detail narration of the same because they were alleged to have taken place during the perio from 1968 to 1972. It is not out of context to mention that the petitioner No. 1, namely, the concerned Society has been formed in 1972 only. There has been also ailed reference in the body of the petition about Charu Majumder's physical cition at the time of his arrest which can be documented from newspaper reports, The pith and substance of the allegation is that during the period of imprisonment of aforesaid Charu Majumder, his health deteriorated and he was not only neglected but no sufficient care and timely intervention were made by the detaining authorities as a result of which he was alleged to have succumed to his illness because of neglect. The complaint rotates round the action of elimination by custodial deaths through fake counters custodial violence and other process of inhuman torture. In the backdrop of the said allegations, prayer was made in the writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus Directing the appointment of a Judicial Commission to enquire into the criminal acts of the State and Police Administration resulting in such alleged commission of widespread desecration of human lives.
(2.) At the time of the hearing Mr. Kar Gupta, the learned Junior Standing Counsel, West Bengal has raised a preliminary objection as, according to him, the writ petitioner No. 2 cannot figure as a petitioner in maintaining a Public Interest Litigation as he is espousing the cause of his father, namely, late Charu Majumder. This Court is not to go into the question of niceties of technicalities as even if it be assumed that petitioner No. 2 cannot figure as a petitioner, still petitioner No. 1 can maintain the petition in the form of a Public Interest Litigation. As such, the preliminary objection sought to be raised by Mr. Kar Gupta, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government, pales into insignificance and that is of academic importance which is not required to be dealt with in this petition.
(3.) At the time of the hearing, attention of this Court has been drawn to salient averments contained in paragraph 8 of the writ petition where atronities which are complained of were alleged to have taken place during the period from 1968 to 1972. The question cropped up for consideration that even if the proposed enquiry be assumed to have a quasi-criminal nature whether any useful purpose will be served by directing holding of commission of enquiry for the period between 1968 to 1972. Mr. Kanniviran, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out and we agree with the submission that with regard to nature of capital crimes the question of limitation does not and cannot arise. Still the Court is required to ponder that unless the instances are of reasonable period of time whether it is possible for the Commission to make an indepth analysis with regard to events which seems to have been over about 27 years before. In the said context, a reference was made to the case of S.C. Chowdury & Ors....... Petitioners v. Secretary, Chakraborty Commission of Enquiry & Ors...... Respondents . In the said decision the impugned notification appointing Chakraborty Commission of enquiry was quashed as in the opinion of the Court, there were no material disclosed upon which the State Government could have formed necessary opinion and the proceedings were set aside. However, it has been observed in the said decision that the State Government may reconsider the matter on such materials and if so advised may take appropriate actions against the person concerned in accordance with law. Commission of Enquiry was directed to place all the materials before the State Government and it should consider legal aspect of the matter taking immediate steps for initiation for further proceeding civil or criminal. In spite of the said direction, 27 years were allowed to have elapsed and so proceeding was initiated in the form and shape of Public Interest Litigation for more than a period of quarter of a century. There is no appeal taken out against the said order as reflected from the aforesaid decision. The Court cannot overlook the loss of enormous time from the fabric of consideration and effect of the judgment and order referred to above. No follow up action in any form inclusive that of Public Interest Litigation has been taken within a period of about 27 years and this may not serve any useful purpose for the Commission to enquire as the Court cannot make up its mind from the prayers of the connected petition as what should be the terms of reference of appointment of a Judicial commission and that has happened to the materials with lapse of time. In that view of the matter this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition at such long lapse of time even if the allegations are distressing in nature in view of the judicial pronouncement of quashing and/or setting aside of earlier Judicial Commission of Enquiry. It has been rightly pointed out by Mr. Kar Gupta that this grievances can not be focussed in a Court of Law within the given parameters but we are at a loss to decipher the chord of continuity of parameters because of lapse of 27 years resulting in possibility of erosion of materials and the effect of the order of the High Court, as aforesaid, is quashing the Enquiry Commission for want of materials. Accordingly, we are constrained to dismiss the writ petition for the reason as aforesaid. Chatterjee, J. - I agree.;