Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Atin vs Union Of India And Others on 5 September, 2017
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
1
87.
BPg.
05.09. W.P. No.11619(W) of 2017
2017
Sk. Atin
Versus
Union of India and others.
Mr. Arunava Ganguly.
...for the petitioner.
None appears on behalf of the respondents in
spite of service of notice as reflected from the affidavit- of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner.
The contention made on behalf of the petitioner is that the officers of the respondents-Railway Authorities have encroached upon the land of the petitioner and the representations submitted by the petitioner in this regard have not been considered by the respondents.
On consideration of the representations submitted by learned advocate of the petitioner before respondent no.2 on September 19, 2015 and June 30, 2016, I find that the said representations should have been considered by the said respondents in accordance with law. Accordingly, I direct the respondent no.2 to consider the said representations (Annexure P/2 and 2 Annexure P/3 to the writ application) in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.
With the above direction, the writ application is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
( R. K. Bag, J. )