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 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Premananda Mukhopadhyay & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 June, 2025

    11
17.06.2025
 Ct. No. 11
 Jayanta
                                 MAT 1892 of 2024
                                        in
                                IA No. CAN 2 of 2024


                      Premananda Mukhopadhyay & Anr.
                                    Vs.
                             Union of India & Ors.


                 Mr. Madhu Sudan Sarkar
                 Mr. Mowsonjit Sarkar
                 Mr. Sourav Mandal
                                          .... For the Appellants.

                 Mr. Partha Ghosh
                 Mr. Surnanell Das
                                             ..... For the UoI.

                 Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Sr. Standing Counsel
                 Ms. Tapati Samanta
                                               ..... For the State.

                 Mr. Anil Kr. Gupta
                 Mr. Yogesh Kr. Sharma
                                             ..... For the UGC.



                 Records reveal that by an order dated 7th April, 2025

              a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the Inspector-

              in-Charge, Electronic Police Complex, Bidhannagar Police

              Commissionerate to show cause as to why the matter

              should not be directed to be handed over to the CID,

              West Bengal for a fresh investigation. Pursuant to such

              direction a show cause was duly filed by the said officer

              and an exception to the said report has also been filed by

              the writ petitioners/appellants herein.

                 Mr. Sarkar, learned advocate appearing for the

              appellants submits that the appellants paid an amount of

              rupees eighteen lakhs to IIPM for admission in IIPM in
                     2




the academic session 2012 to 2015 for pursuing MBA

Course believing the contents of the advertisement

published by IIPM, wherein it was categorically stated

that it would provide service to the students, who would

complete their studies. The appellants were illegally

allured to pay the said amount.

      Records further reveal that in spite of service no one

appeared before a Coordinate Bench of this Court when

the appeal was heard on 30th September, 2024, 24th

March, 2025 and 7th April, 2025 though one learned

advocate appeared on behalf of the said respondent nos.

6 and 7 in course of hearing of the writ petition.

For adjudication of the dispute the presence of the said respondent nos. 6, 7 and 16 would be necessary.

In view thereof, the appellants are directed to intimate this order to the said respondent nos. 6, 7 and 16 and also to the learned advocate, who entered appearance of the behalf of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 before the writ Court, within a week from date and to affirm an affidavit- of-service on the returnable date.

The Investigating Officer of the case, on whose behalf Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned Standing Counsel has entered appearance, is also directed to intimate this order to the said respondent nos. 6, 7 and 16.

List the matter for further consideration on 8th July, 2025.

3

It is made clear that in the event no one appears on the said respondent nos. 6, 7 and 16 on the returnable date, in spite of service, this Court would be constrained to direct their personal appearance.

(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)