Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 36904 (CAL)

SMT. SAPTASWARA SAMANTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/20834/2025 · 2026-08-28

Arjun Ray Mukherjee

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Item No.22 28.08.2026 Court. No. 236 GB WPA 20834 of 2025 Smt. Saptaswara Samanta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. U.K. Jana … for the Petitioner. Ms. Rashmi Ghosh, Mr. Ghanshyam Pandey, Mr. Rosan Singh … for the State. 1. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and the learned advocate representing the State are present. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Secretary, Law Department, Government of West Bengal, issued an advertisement dated September 16, 2020 for appointment of notaries in West Bengal. The petitioner, pursuant to such advertisement, applied for and submitted all the documents. Thereafter, he was directed by the respondents to appear before the interview board on January 28, 2021. He duly appeared before the interview board. The Law Officer, Law Department, Government of West Bengal, by a letter dated February 21, 2024, directed the petitioner to appear before the officials of the department with all the required original documents as mentioned in Form-I of the Notaries Rules, 1956 for verification. Thereafter, on June 19, 2024, the petitioner was further directed by the Law Officer, Law Department, Government of West Bengal to 2 deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- as fees towards administrative service for issuance of the certificate of practice. 3. The petitioner submits that he paid such amount on July 2, 2024. Since nothing fruitful happened, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Law Officer, Law Department, Government of West Bengal on April 7, 2025. 4. The petitioner, by filing this writ petition, has alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering his representation. 5. The learned advocate appearing for the State respondents today handed over an instruction issued by the Principal Secretary, Law Department, Government of West Bengal. 6. It appears from the said communication dated September 25, 2025 that the Judicial department, Government of West Bengal had not been in a position to appoint the petitioner as a notary public. The relevant paragraphs of the letter dated September 25, 2025 are quoted below: “On 19.09.2025, the Hon‟ble Minister-in- Charge, Law & Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal took his final decision about the application Smt. Saptaswara Samanta for her appointment as notary public, which is quoted as follows: „The application can be rejected on the following ground: 3 In the NOC, as issued by the Bar Council of the West Bengal on 10.12.2021 the address of the applicant as mentioned as – „Smt. Saptaswara Samanta of Vill.- Bhawanipur, P.O. - Debhog, Dist.- Purba Medinipur – 721657.‟ However, in FORM I which was submitted by the applicant on 30.09.2020, the address of the applicant (residence) is mentioned as – „Vill. – Gandhinagar E16, P.O. – Hatiberia, P.S. – Haldia, Dist. – Purba Medinipur, PIN – 721657.‟ In the aforementioned document the address of the applicant (official) is stated as - „Haldia Advocates Bar Association, Vill & P.O.-Debhog, City Centre, P.S. _ Bhabanipur, Dist. – Purba Medinipur, Pin – 721657.‟ In the Aadhar Card the address of the applicant is mentioned as - „W/o – Sudip Bag, E 16, Chandhinagar Colony, Hatiberia, Haldia (M) Purba Medinipur, Hatiberia, West Bengal, 721657.‟ There lies vivid anomaly in her addresses, as mentioned by her. The address as mentioned in her application does not reflect in the NOC issued by the Bar Council of West Bengal. Due to the aforesaid decision of the Hon‟ble Minister-in-Charge, Law & Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal the said Government is not in a position to appoint Smt. Saptaswara Samanta as a Notary Public.” 4 7. It appears that the decision taken by the Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal not to appoint the petitioner as a notary public has given rise to a fresh cause of action and in view of such decision, this writ petition has become infructuous. 8. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. 9. However, dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from challenging the grounds mentioned in the letter dated September 25, 2025 issued by the Principal Secretary, Law Department, Government of West Bengal in accordance with law. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)