The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from a judicial magistrate in Alipore, Calcutta, after the judge refused to proceed with a property dispute case on the grounds that he had “lost jurisdiction” once he failed to comply with the court’s earlier order to dispose of the matter within six weeks.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale issued the directions while hearing an appeal filed by Shiv Kumar Shaw, who challenged the magistrate’s refusal to continue proceedings despite clear directions from the apex court. The case stems from a long-standing property dispute between Shiv Kumar Shaw and his sister, Rekha Shaw.
On January 18, 2024, the Supreme Court had directed the judicial magistrate, 4th court at Alipore, to dispose of the matter within six weeks. However, on March 19, 2024, the magistrate passed an order stating that since the timeline had expired, he no longer had jurisdiction to deal with the case.
Expressing surprise at this approach, the Supreme Court observed that the judge should have sought an extension of time rather than declining jurisdiction altogether. “We are pained to note the manner in which the order has been passed,” the bench remarked, adding that a lapse in the court’s timeline does not strip a trial judge of authority over the case.
The apex court has now directed the district judge of Alipore to obtain a written explanation from the trial magistrate and submit a report within one month. The magistrate must clarify why he claimed to have lost jurisdiction and under what circumstances he refused to proceed further.
The petitioner, Shiv Kumar Shaw, was represented by senior advocate Rahul Kaushik, while his sister was represented by advocate-on-record Shambo Nandy, who appeared without issuance of notice. The court also granted Kaushik two weeks to file a response explaining the reasons for delay in the lower court’s handling of the case.
The Registry has been instructed to forward a copy of the Supreme Court’s order, dated September 26, 2024, to the relevant authorities.
The matter arises out of a January 18, 2024 judgment of the court in which it had specifically directed expeditious disposal of the property dispute proceedings.