The Supreme Court recently directed the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to assign to a new bench a matter pending before a division bench of the High Court that had been adjourned approximately 40 times over a three-year period. The case in question involves the litigation pertaining to the board of La Martiniere School, Kolkata.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah concluded that the Bench constituted to hear the matter was unable to do so.
“We have no other option but to draw the conclusion that for whatever reasons the Bench constituted to hear this matter is unable to attend to it. We thus request the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the matter to some other Bench which may be able to attend to the matter more expeditiously,” the bench remarked.
The order stated that the Apex Court would find it difficult to tolerate the ongoing saga of adjournments.
The newly assigned Bench was asked to take up the matter as soon as possible, given the urgency of the matter, the scope of the appeal, and the previous saga of adjournments.
The Supreme Court noted in an order passed in January 2023 pertaining to the same controversy as in the present matter that the matter had been listed before the Division Bench of the High Court 27 times but had yielded no results.
The top court had noted the same, stating that the 27 adjournments were most likely due to difficulties that the division bench was experiencing. However, because the issue involved an eminent educational institution, the Supreme Court expected the High Court to consider it. However, the bench noted that the case had not progressed after six months.
Aggrieved by the adjournments the petitioner had approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court had passed orders directing that the matter be assigned to the then-Acting Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court so that it could be heard and decided expeditiously.
On April 19, 2023, the order was served on the office of the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court. During the hearing, the Apex Court bench noted,
“Listing of the matter however continued before the same Bench and the same result continued with adjournment.”
In response to Counsel’s request to allow him to appear virtually before the High Court, the bench noted in the order –
“We are told that the proceedings virtually are being hampered. We fail to appreciate that, as the Counsels have the option to either appear virtually or physically.”
