✦ Calcutta High Court

Judgment · High Court

RAJASEKHAR MANTHA2 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Mr. Santanu Kr. Mitra …for the petitioner …for the State ….for the WBCHSE The order dated August 12, 2022 is mentioned for correction. In the third line of the third paragraph of the second page of the said order, the expression ‘Higher Secondary Education’ shall stand corrected to read as ‘Higher Secondary Examination’ In the fourth line of the third paragraph of the second page of the said order, the expression ‘West Bengal Council for Higher Secondary Education Examination’ shall stand corrected to read as ‘West Bengal Council for Higher Secondary Education’. In the third paragraph of the second page of the said order, after the seventh line, the following sentences should be added. “Mr. Santanu Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the West Bengal Council for Higher Secondary Education and Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, learned 2 counsel appearing for the State submit that in the normal process, the petitioner is required to apply for answer scripts only through the Right to Information Act, 2005. They submit that the answer script shall be provided to the petitioner within 7 days of such application. Mr. Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that his client shall apply under the Right Information Act, 2005, respondents by tomorrow (18.08.2022). If such application is made by tomorrow (18.08.2022) as stated, Mr. Santanu Mitra, learned counsel for the West Bengal Council for Higher Secondary Education, submits that his client shall supply the answer scripts within 7 days of such application, i.e., by August 25, 2022. The aforesaid order is passed, since Mr. Mitra and Mr. Mukherjee have submitted that as a practice, the Council does not entertain any request for supply of answer script except under the provisions of the RTI Act of 2005. This Court does not wish to pronounce upon the propriety of such a practice in the instant case given the urgency of the petitioner. Mr. Mukherjee and Mr. Mitra also dispute that the petitioner’s the Joint Entrance Examination could have been 292. Steps are being taken by the Council to ascertain the veracity of the 3 petitioner’s submission and the records produced in the writ petition. Let the aforesaid corrections be incorporated in the order dated August 12, 2022. The other parts of the said order shall remain unaltered. The Department is directed to make necessary corrections. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Calcutta High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments