Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Srikanta Maity vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 December, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
14.12.11 In The High Court At Calcutta
ss Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
CAN No. 1708 of 2011
in
W.P. No. 7002 (W) of 2008
Sri Srikanta Maity
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
None ...for the petitioner.
Mr Amal K. Basu
Ms Dipti Bhattacharyya ...for the applicant.
Mr A.K. Sur
Mr N.G. Mukherjee ...for WBFC.
The person filing the CAN claims that he is the auction
purchaser. Questioning the sale the WP was filed. In the CAN it
has been alleged that pendency of the WP has seriously affected
the interests of the auction purchaser.
It is submitted that notice of the CAN has been given to
the petitioner in the WP. However, none appears to oppose the
CAN. Counsel for the Corporation submits that addition of the
auction purchaser will not affect the Corporation's interests.
I think it will be appropriate to allow the prayer for
addition.
For these reasons, I allow the CAN. The department
concerned is directed to add the person taking out the CAN as a
respondent. Steps for amendment of the cause papers shall be
taken within a week from the date the records are sent down from the Court. No costs.
Advocate for the petitioner in the WP is directed to serve a copy of the WP on advocate for the added respondent within a fortnight. The added respondent will be at liberty to file opposition within four weeks after the Christmas vacation; reply, if any, shall be filed by a week thereafter.
2Liberty to mention the WP for final hearing. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)