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 2]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Rabi Shankar Pandey & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 July, 2018

Author: Protik Prakash Banerjee

Bench: Protik Prakash Banerjee

                                                 1



July,
018
KB)
                                     W.P. 4014 (W) of 2015


                                  Rabi Shankar Pandey & Ors.
                                            Versus
                                     Union of India & Ors.


                    Mr. Arunava Ghosh,
                    Mr. Anant Kumar Shaw,
                    Mr. Samrat Dey Pal
                                       ... for the petitioners.

                    Mr. Swapan Banerjee,
                    Mr. Lalit Mondal
                                       ... for the Municipality.


              By inadvertence in my order dated June 25, 2018 it had not been recorded

        that Mr. Swapan Banerjee with Mr. Lalit Mondal, who are representing petitioner

        no.2 pursuant to a change in the composition of the Board of Councilors of the

        Kharagpur Municipality, appeared for the petitioner no.2, the Kharagpur

        Municipality though their appearance had been recorded in my order dated May

        2, 2018, while passing the interim order on June 25, 2018. Only the names of

        the learned advocates representing the erstwhile Chairman of the said

        Municipality had been recorded.     Such erstwhile Chairman is a party having

        executed the vakalatnama in favour of Mr. Samrat Dey Pal.

              Today Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate, has filed a fresh vakalatnama

        through his learned junior Mr. Lalit Mondal on behalf of the petitioner no.2, the

        Kharagpur Municipality. Let this vakalatnama be dated as of today and be taken

        on record after compliance with due formalities before the principal officer of this
                                          2


Court.    Let the appearances be deemed to have been corrected such that the

appearance shown on May 2, 2018 is retained in this order.

        Since the interests of the Municipality, its Chairman and its present

Councilors are identical, this does not constitute any difficulty in either

representation or the parties. However, by way of abundant caution, Mr. Shaw's

learned advocate on record is given liberty to correct the cause title such that the

petitioner no.1 is shown as a Councilor of the petitioner no.2.      Similarly, Mr.

Banerjee's learned advocate on record is given liberty to add the Chairman of the

Municipality in such capacity without naming him as the third petitioner.

        The present order shall be communicated along with the corrected copies

of the cause title on all the respondents within 7 days after effecting the

corrections before the section head of the Mandamus department. Such corrections must be carried out within July 6, 2018. The time to make corrections in terms of order dated June 25, 2018 is also extended till July 6, 2018.

Further, inadvertent mistake appears from the third paragraph of the order dated June 25, 2018. It was recorded inadvertently that the Municipality had been served when the matter had been moved. Since the Municipality itself a petitioner, it is a clear typographical error. Let that paragraph starting from the words "The municipality had been served......." till the words ".....not represented today" be deleted. My order dated June 25, 2018 shall stand corrected as above.

(Protik Prakash Banerjee, J.) 3