Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sisters Of St. Joseph Of Cluny vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 January, 2014
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
21.01.2014. F.M.A. 3579 of 2013
dc. with
CAN 2973 of 2013
Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny, Ashadeep
versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mrs. Chama Mukherjee,
Mr. Sandip Ghosh ... For the Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. Joytosh Majumder,
Mr. Pinaki Dhole ... For the State-Respondents.
Ms. Shampa Sarkar ... For the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Joydeep Kar, Mr. Kishore Dutta, Mr. Indranil Roy, Mr. Arnab Mukherjee ... For the Respondent No. 3.
Mr. Probal Mukherjee,
Mr. Ayanabha Raha,
Mr. Arindam Das ... For the G.T.A.
Though direction was given earlier on 15th July, 2013 for filing an application for adding the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration, Darjeeling, West Bengal as party respondent in this appeal, but no application has yet been taken out either by the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration, Darjeeling, West Bengal or by the appellant herein.
Be that as it may, after hearing the learned advocates of the parties, we feel that presence of Gorkhaland Territorial Administration, Darjeeling, West Bengal is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute involved in this appeal. Prayer for addition of the said Administration made by Mr. 2 Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the said Administration is also not opposed by Mrs. Chama Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant.
In such view of the fact, prayer for addition of Gorkhaland Territorial Administration, Darjeeling, West Bengal is allowed.
The learned advocate-on-record of the appellant is directed to implead the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration, Darjeeling, West Bengal as respondent no.5 by amending the cause title of the Memorandum of Appeal.
Since the memorandum of appeal and the connected applications have already been served upon the learned advocate of the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration, no further service of those documents upon the learned advocate representing the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration is necessary.
Let the Vakalatnama submitted by Mr. Ayanabha Raha, learned advocate on behalf of the added respondent be kept with the record.
Re: CAN 2973 of 2013 (Stay) In this application, the appellant has prayed for stay of operation of the order impugned in the appeal. Since the writ petition was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court and the order of dismissal is under challenge in this appeal, we feel that there is no order operating in the field 3 which requires to be stayed. Accordingly, the appellant's prayer for stay of operation of the impugned order is rejected.
The appellant has also prayed for interim order by way of injunction in this application.
Mrs. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant/applicant submits that while entertaining the writ petition, some interim protection was given to her client by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 26th April, 2010 which the appellant enjoyed till the disposal of the writ petition.
Mrs. Mukherjee thus prays for continuation of the said interim arrangement made by the Learned Single Judge of this Court as mentioned above till the disposal of the appeal.
Such prayer for interim injunction is opposed by Mr. Kar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.3. He submits that the said interim order which was passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 26th April, 2010 lost its force on 3rd July, 2012 with the dismissal of the writ petition.
The instant appeal was filed long thereafter with an application for condonation of delay. Though the delay was condoned, but since the petitioner/appellant was without any interim protection for such a long time, this Court refuses to pass any interim order for continuation of the ad interim order which was passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court ex parte on 26th April, 2010. Accordingly, prayer for such interim order stands rejected.
4The application for stay being CAN 2973 of 2013 thus stands disposed of.
Re: FMA 3579 of 2013 However in view of urgency involved in this appeal, we direct the appellant to prepare requisite number of informal paper book incorporating therein all the pleadings of the respective parties filed before the Learned Single Judge of this Court and file the same within three weeks from date.
The appellant is also directed to serve copy of the paper book upon the respondents and/or their learned advocates-on- record immediately thereafter.
Let the appeal be included in the list for hearing on 28th February, 2014.
(JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J.) ( ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, J. )