Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mehedi Hassan & Ors vs Akhtar Ali & Ors on 15 September, 2014
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
15.09.2014.
d.p.
M.A.T. 1467 of 2014
(CAN 8319 of 2014)
(CAN 8320 of 2014)
Mehedi Hassan & Ors.
Versus
Akhtar Ali & Ors.
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Arkaprava Sen.
...For the Appellants.
Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee.
...For the Writ Petitioners/
Respondents.
Mr. Debanik Banerjee.
...For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Mr. Santanu Deb Roy.
...For the Respondent No. 15.
Mr. Achintya Kr. Banerjee, Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty.
...For the University of Burdwan.
The instant mandamus appeal arises out of an order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 7th July, 2014 in W.P. No. 2519 (W) of 2014 at the instance of some of the students of Kabi Nazrul College, Murarai, Birbhum who were not parties in the writ petition.
2The writ petition was filed by the writ petitioners by challenging the legality of the election of the members of the students union of the said college. The Learned Trial Judge after taking into consideration the entire background as to how the election was held, ultimately came to the conclusion that the election was not conducted fairly and legally.
Accordingly, direction was given upon the University authorities to reschedule the election programme of the students union election and reconstitute the students union on the basis of such election to be held as per the changed schedule to be refixed by the University authorities.
The legality and/or propriety of the said order of the Learned Trial Judge is sought to be challenged by the appellants herein.
We are informed by the Learned advocate for the appellants that his clients filed an application for addition of party before the Learned Trial Judge. Though such an application was filed, they did not move the said application before the Learned Trial Judge. When despite having knowledge of the said proceeding, they did not ultimately take any effective step for getting themselves added in the said writ petition even after filing an application for addition of party in the said writ petition, we are of the view that practically they abandoned their right to contest the said writ petition.
Accordingly, we do not find any reason to grant leave to such appellants for challenging the legality of the impugned order before us.
3The application for leave to prefer appeal thus, stands rejected. Consequently the appeal also stands dismissed.
In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, no further order need be passed on the stay application which is deemed to be disposed of.
The application for stay being CAN 8320 of 2014 is thus, deemed to be disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate for the appellants immediately.
( Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J ) (Tapash Mookherjee, J.)