Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smat. Sarala Bala Dasi & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 April, 2018
Author: Protik Prakash Banerjee
Bench: Protik Prakash Banerjee
1
April,
018
KB)
W.P.C.R. 1(W) of 2018
Smat. Sarala Bala Dasi & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
I had recorded in my order dated February 14, 2018 when dealing with the
submissions of the learned Junior, the Standing Counsel as follows:
"The learned Junior Standing Counsel submits that he has video
photography footage to show the exact situation of the canal/lands of the
writ petitioners. He submits this video photography was done under the
supervision of the responsible officer of the State being the Block
Development Officer and the Officer attached to his office. The original
device containing such video photography and the duly authenticated copy
shall be produced on the next date of hearing. Copies of the said footage,
already made as aforesaid, shall be made available to the petitioners and
the learned advocate for respondent no.4 and the original device shall be
presented before this Court to display in a form and conditions in which the raw footage can be watched from the device itself. The footage which would be given to the Court shall be kept under the sealed cover with a counter signature of the Assistant Court Officer of this Court till further orders."
It was on the basis of this submission and the affidavits filed showing cause to the Rule Nisi issued by me that I had modified the interim order passed earlier. Such modified interim order is still in force. However, for reasons only beyond the control of this Court the learned advocates have not appeared and in fact are not appearing or participating in judicial process. This matter was directed to appear as "heard-in-part" after three weeks from February 14, 2018. 2 It had appeared but due to absence of the learned advocates time and again it has been adjourned.
I consider it particularly unfortunate that though there was a direction passed for presenting the original device where the recording was made before this Court, the Court has been kept in the dark about the fate of the video footage.
Accordingly, the learned Registrar (Administration) is requested to communicate through appropriate letter the desire of this Court to the learned Junior, the Standing Counsel that the Court wishes to be enlightened about the fate of the original device and the video footage recorded therein. The learned Junior, Standing Counsel does not have to appear in Court for this but a simple reply to the letter sent by the learned Registrar (Administration) shall be sufficient compliance of this direction. Such letter shall be sent by the learned Registrar (Administration) within a week from date; this Court expects an answer from the learned Junior, Standing Counsel within a week thereafter. The learned Registrar (Administration) shall put up both the copy of the letter sent by him and the answer, if any, received by him in the form of a note. To such note shall be appended the aforesaid copy of the letter and the response thereto.
The matter shall appear after compliance of the aforesaid directions.
(Protik Prakash Banerjee, J.)