The Supreme Court disposed of the TMC’s plea over the removal of its Camac Street office signboard, granting both sides liberty to argue before the Calcutta High Court and asking it to decide expeditiously.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday disposed of a plea by the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) concerning the removal of the party’s signboard from its office on Camac Street in Kolkata, granting both sides liberty to raise all their contentions before the Calcutta High Court and requesting the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously while clarifying that the observations in the High Court’s earlier order would not prejudice either side [All India Trinamool Congress v. State of West Bengal and Others].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the matter, in which the party, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, challenged the removal of its nameboard and the Calcutta High Court’s refusal of interim relief.
‘Removal does not mean your grievance is satisfied’
The core of the party’s grievance was that the High Court had declined to entertain its plea on the footing that nothing survived once the signboard had already been taken down. Sibal submitted that the High Court had taken the view that no cause of action survived because the board had already been removed, and that it had effectively held he had no case.
The Chief Justice indicated that the fact of removal did not, by itself, extinguish the party’s claim, observing:
“Merely because the signboard has been removed does not mean your grievance stands satisfied. If your claim succeeds, the High Court can still grant appropriate relief.”
Sibal pressed that his challenge rested on a specific ground the High Court had not examined that no prior notice had been issued before the removal. He submitted that the police had merely been informed on August 26 that security would be required for taking down the signboard, and that he had approached the High Court precisely on the ground of the absence of notice, only for the Court to hold that since the board was already removed, no cause of action survived. He sought that the matter be sent back so that he could raise all these issues afresh, and that the observations in the impugned order not prejudice his case.
‘A registered political party’s name, removed without notice’
Sibal framed the removal as a matter of some gravity given the identity of the occupant. He submitted that this was a registered political party whose name had been displayed on the building and taken down without any prior notice, contending that even a commercial establishment’s signboard would not ordinarily be removed in that manner. The party, he added, was in possession of the premises under a registered lease.
Justice Mohana pointed out that the High Court had left the issues open for consideration, and that the Supreme Court could request the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously a course Sibal accepted as satisfactory. Counsel for the building owners sought that they too be granted liberty to raise their contentions before the High Court, noting that their intervention application had not been allowed.
ALSO READ: TMC Bank Accounts: Calcutta High Court Declines Further Relief On Four Frozen Accounts
The order
Disposing of the plea, the Chief Justice granted the parties liberty to raise all their respective contentions before the Calcutta High Court, requested the High Court to decide all issues arising in the matter expeditiously, and clarified that the observations made in the impugned order “will not prejudice either side or prevent them from raising their respective contentions before the High Court.” The effect of the order is to send the dispute back for a full hearing on the merits including the question of whether prior notice was required before the signboard’s removal rather than to leave it foreclosed on the ground that the removal had rendered the matter academic.
The order reflects a familiar supervisory approach: where a High Court declines relief on the narrow footing that a grievance has become infructuous, the Supreme Court will often keep the substantive questions alive by remitting them with liberty to argue afresh, rather than deciding them itself. Here, the underlying disputes the party’s claim to have its nameboard restored, its assertion of possession under a registered lease, and the building owners’ competing contentions remain to be examined by the High Court, which has been asked to take them up expeditiously. Nothing has been finally decided on any of these questions.
For the AITC: Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
