SOUVIK MITRA ZIALUL HAQUE vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. — WPA /5147/2026

Case under No Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 23rd March 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0097362026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

11th March 2026

Filing Number

WPA /4857/2026

Filing Date

26-02-2026

Registration No

WPA /5147/2026

Registration Date

02-03-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

SUSPENSION ( 10 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

NO ACT Section NA

Petitioner(s)

SOUVIK MITRA ZIALUL HAQUE

Respondent(s)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, EASTERN RAILWAY

SENIOR DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, R.P.F. EASTERN RAILWAY, ASANSOL

ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, EASTERN RAILWAY, ASANSOL

ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER, R.P.F. EASTERN RAILWAY, ANDAL UNDER ASANSOL DIVISION

SENIOR DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, R.P.F. EASTERN RAILWAY, ASANSOL

D.I.G. CUM CSC/R.P.F./KOLKATA, EASTERN RAILWAY CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA

11-03-2026

NEW MOTION

Orders

23-03-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA

The High Court at Calcutta disposed of the writ petition without entering into the merits, finding it premature since the petitioner's revision petition was already pending before the competent authority. The court directed the revisional authority to decide the revision petition strictly according to law within the statutory timeframe, leaving all points open for the competent authority to decide based on whether principles of natural justice were violated in the de novo disciplinary proceeding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court at Calcutta disposed of the writ petition without entering into the merits, finding it premature since the petitioner's revision petition was already pending before the competent authority. The court directed the revisional authority to decide the revision petition strictly according to law within the statutory timeframe, leaving all points open for the competent authority to decide based on whether principles of natural justice were violated in the de novo disciplinary proceeding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case