Skip to content


Amit Chowdhury Vs. Subrata Basu and Ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantAmit Chowdhury
RespondentSubrata Basu and Ors.
Excerpt:
.....of cctv camera in the premises by the plaintiff on the ground that the installation of cctv cameras has encroached on the privacy of the defendant no.1. by order dated august 9, 2016, learned single judge of this court directed the officer-in-charge of local police station to visit the premises along with a team of experts belonging to the police force parties and and to to inspect advise the the premises plaintiff in presence regarding of the location or relocation of cctv cameras if the cctv cameras are encroaching on the privacy of the defendant no.1. inspector-in-charge of bidhannagar the report submitted by the east police station through learned advocate-on-record of the state of west bengal is placed before this court on september 15, 2016. the defendant no.1 was.....
Judgment:

ORDER

SHEET TS25of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE GOODS OF: Sr.SUKHA RANJAN BOSE (DECEASED) -ANDAMIT CHOWDHURY -VSSUBRATA BASU & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE RANJIT KUMAR BAG Date : 26th September, 2016.

Appearance: Mr.Raja Basu Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Debashis Saha, Adv.Ms.D.Basu, Adv.…for the plaintiff.

Mr.Santanu Mitra, Adv.Mr.Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Adv.…for the defendant no.1.

The Court : By order dated March 9, 2015, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court granted permission to the plaintiff to install CCTV camera in the common area of the premises No.CJ97, Sector II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata–700 091 without disturbing the defendant no.1.

The plaintiff is residing in the second floor of the said premises and the defendant no.1 is residing in the ground floor of the said premises.

The defendant no.1 raised objection before this Court against installation of CCTV camera in the premises by the plaintiff on the ground that the installation of CCTV cameras has encroached on the privacy of the defendant no.1.

By order dated August 9, 2016, learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Officer-in-charge of local police station to visit the premises along with a team of experts belonging to the police force parties and and to to inspect advise the the premises plaintiff in presence regarding of the location or relocation of CCTV cameras if the CCTV cameras are encroaching on the privacy of the defendant no.1.

Inspector-in-charge of Bidhannagar The report submitted by the East Police Station through learned advocate-on-record of the State of West Bengal is placed before this Court on September 15, 2016.

The defendant no.1 was permitted to file an affidavit-in-opposition in connection with the said report dated September 5, 2016.

The affidavit submitted by the defendant no.1 is kept on record.

no.1, Mr.submits Bhattacharyya, that the learned Officer Counsel in-charge of for the defendant Bidhannagar East Police Station engaged an expert from outside the department of the Police and thereby violated the direction given by this Court on August 9, 2016.

He further submits that the experts have submitted along the report with certificate without assigning reasons in support of the opinion particularly location of the CCTV cameras.

According to Mr.Bhattacharyya, the report is liable to be rejected as one of the cameras can be rotated and the privacy of the defendant no.1 can be infringed by the plaintiff.

Mr.Raja Basu Chowdhury, learned Counsel representing the plaintiff, submits that both the CCTV cameras are fixed and the same cannot be rotated as alleged by the defendant no.1 and the installation of CCTV cameras is essential for the security of the two daughters and the wife of the plaintiff who stays outside the premises for almost half of the year for discharging his duty as a marine.

According to Mr.Basu Chowdhury, the report is binding on both the parties to the suit.

On perusal of the report submitted by the Inspector incharge of Bidhannagar East Police Station on September 5, 2016, I find that the Inspector in-charge of the said police station engaged an expert from Simoco Telecommunications (S/A) Limited, Block–EP & GP, Sector–V, Salt Lake, Kolkta – 700 091 for visiting the premises in question as expert for inspection of the CCTV cameras and submission of the report.

report Limited whether are defendant process the no.1 of the experts experts and her inspection Telecommunications (S/A) of of the Simoco police learned Telecommunications department.

Advocate conducted Limited It is not clear from the by in Since participated the presence expert of (S/A) of in the the Simoco Inspector in- charge of Bidhannagar East Police Station, I am of the view that the defendant no.1 has not been prejudiced for not engaging an expert of the police department by the Inspector in-charge of Bidhannagar East Police Station.

The argument advanced by Mr.Bhattacharyya that the report should not be accepted by the Court as the Inspector in-charge of Bidhannagar East Police Station engaged outside export in violation of the order of the Court has no merit as the defendant no.1 and her learned Advocate participated in the process of inspection conducted by the expert in presence of the plaintiff and the Inspector in-charge of the police station without raising any objection at the relevant point of time.

On perusal of the report submitted by the Inspector in- charge of Bidhannagar East Police Station, I do not think that there is any prejudice caused to either of the parties for not assigning any reason by the expert for submission of the report.

The report only indicates the location of installation of two CCTV cameras – entrance installed one at the fiRs.floor covering the view of at staircase between outer entrance ground wall facing lobby floor and and the main the other fiRs.floor covering the view of the entrance of common staircase.

There is nothing on record to indicate that the two cameras installed by the plaintiff can be rotated as alleged by the defendant no.1.

In my view, the installation of CCTV cameras in two locations of the premises by the plaintiff cannot encroach on the privacy of the defendant no.1 as alleged by the defendant no.1 before this Court.

In view of my above findings, the report submitted by the Inspector September 5, in-charge 2016 is of Bidhannagar binding on both East the Police Station plaintiff and on the defendant no.1 of the suit.

Mr.Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel for the defendant no.1, submits that the documents have already been disclosed but the inspection is not offered.

Similarly, Mr.Basu Chowdhury also submits that the plaintiff has already disclosed the documents but the inspection has not been offered.

In view of such submission from the Bar, the parties are directed to offer inspection of their respective documents immediately on reopening of the Court after expiry of Puja Vacation.

The parties are also directed to prepare the Judge’s Brief of Documents and to file the same in Court on the next date of hearing.

List the matter under the heading “Framing of Issues” on November 10, 2016.

(R.K.BAG, J.) sp2.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //