Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court

Rajesh Poddar & Anr vs West Bengal Information Commission & ... on 24 July, 2017

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

ORDER SHEET
                             WP No.398 of 2017
                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                       Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                              ORIGINAL SIDE


                                               RAJESH PODDAR & ANR.
                                                             Versus
                          WEST BENGAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.


 BEFORE:
 The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
 Date: 24th July, 2017
                                                                           Appearance
                                                             Mr. Rudradeb Chaudhuri, Adv.

                                                                  Ms. Smita Das Dey, Adv.

                                                          Mr. Abhrotosh Majumdar, Ld. AAG



           The Court : The petitioner seeks information sought for in the letter

  dated March 25, 2017.

           The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, although the

  respondent no.4 has applied for information from the Registering Authority,

such information has not been supplied to the respondent no.4 till date. He refers judgment and decree dated September 12, 2014 and submits that, there no time frame has been fixed for the purpose of supply of such information by the Registering Authority to the respondent no.4.

The Registering Authority and the respondent no.1 are represented. None appears for respondent no.4 in spite of service.

Five suits were decreed by a judgment and order dated September 12, 2014. The respondent no.4 was allowed to buy the shares of the petitioner 2 at a valuation. The respondent no.4 was directed to file application for the purpose of obtaining valuation of the property and purchasing the shares of the petitioner at such valuation. Apparently, respondent no.4 had applied to the Registering Authority for the purpose of getting the valuation done. However, the Registering Authority has not informed the respondent no.4 or the petitioner about such valuation.

In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the Registering Authority to undertake the process of valuation forthwith. Both the petitioner and the respondent no.4 will cooperate with the Registering Authority in preparing the valuation. The Registering Authority will complete the valuation within fortnight from date and will intimate the respective parties the valuation immediately thereafter.

WP No.398 of 2017 is disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) akg/