Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ct. No. 5 Manoranjan Ray & Others vs State Of West Bengal & Others on 26 August, 2019
Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Bench: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
1
1 26.08.201 W. P. 29315 (W) of 2017
BD
9.
Ct. No. 5 Manoranjan Ray & Others
Vs
State of West Bengal & Others
Ms. Husn Ara Begum.
... For Petitioner
Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee.
... For State
Leave is granted to the learned advocate for
the petitioners to correct the father's name of the
petitioner no. 1 in the cause title of the instant writ
petition.
By an order dated August 20, 2019 a direction
was passed upon the Block Development Officer,
Maynaguri, District Jalpaiguri to consider the
representation of the petitioners and to dispose of the
same by passing a reasoned order within a specified
time limit. It was further observed in the said order
that the Block Development Officer shall afford an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and/or their
authorised representatives and any other parties
whom the concerned Block Development Officer feels
necessary to be heard to adjudicate the said issue.
However, it transpires from the documents
annexed to the writ petition that no representation
was made before the concerned Block Development
officer and accordingly this matter was directed to
appear under the heading "To Be Mentioned".
Today upon hearing the learned advocates of
the respective parties the earlier order dated August
20, 2019 is modified to the extent that instead of
'Block Development Officer', the 'District Magistrate,
Jalpaiguri' shall consider the representation dated
October 17, 2017 and will dispose of the same by
passing a reasoned order within a period of ten days
from the date of communication of this order.
It is needless to mention that the District
Magistrate shall afford a reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners and/or their authorised
representatives and any other parties whom the
2
concerned District Magistrate feels necessary to be
heard to adjudicate the said issue.
The order dated August 20, 2019 is modified
only to the extent as indicated above.
Mr. Mukherjee, the learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the State respondents, submits
that due to the time limit as stipulated hereinabove, the petitioners may be directed to annex a copy of the representation dated October 17, 2017 along with a copy of this order while communicating the order to the District Magistrate so that while disposing of the representation the District Magistrate can adhere to the time limit as stipulated in this order.
In view of such submission, the petitioner is directed to annex a copy of the representation dated October 17, 2017 while communicating orders dated August 20, 2019 and August 26, 2019 passed by this Court.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)