In Re: The Chief Electoral Officer vs Subhasis Das & Ors on 23 February, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

In Re: The Chief Electoral Officer vs Subhasis Das & Ors on 23 February, 2017

Bench: Nishita Mhatre

                                                      1

        23.02.17
        Item Nos.
         4&5
       Court No.01
       Krishnendu
             W.P.S.T. No. 22 of 2017

In re: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed on 09.02.2017;
                            And

In re: The Chief Electoral Officer, W.B.
                  - Versus -
       Subhasis Das & Ors.

                            With

          W.P.ST. No. 25 of 2017

In re: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed on 13.02.2017;
                            And

In re: Sunil Kumar Gupta
                     - Versus -
       The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal
        & Ors.


Mr. Joydip Kar
Mr. Indranil Roy
Mr. Dipayan Choudhury
Ms. Priyanka Chowdhury
Ms.Srija Banerjee
                       For the Petitioner in
                      both matters

Mr. Sekhar Mustafi
                             For the Respondent No.1 in

WPST No. 22 of 2017 and the Respondent No.3 in WPST No. 25 of 2017 Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee Mr. Somnath Naskar For the State in WPST No.22 of 2017 Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee Mr. R.N.Dutta For the State in WPST No.25 of 2017 The impugned order has been passed directing the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, to ensure that the respondent No.1 in W.P.S.T. No. 22 of 2017 and the respondent no.3 in W.P.S.T. No. 25 of 2017, namely Subhasis Das, is appointed in "the concerned post" after relaxation of age. 2

The Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal has no staff of its own according to Mr. Kar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the matters. He submits that the contempt proceedings have been initiated against the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal which are pending in the Tribunal. He, therefore, prays that these proceedings be stayed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we direct that the contempt proceedings being C.C.P. 128 of 2016, be stayed till the disposal of these two writ petitions.

Mr. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing for the State in both matters, is directed to produce the records relating to the Employment Notice issued in 2001, which is annexed at page 109 in WPST No. 22 of 2017.

List both these matters on 9th March, 2017 under the heading "Motion".

(Nishita Mhatre, A.C.J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)