Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Sourav Chattopadhyay & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 January, 2021
27.01.2021
Item No. 17 + 18
Ct. No. 04
PG
M.A.T. 773 of 2020
With
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2020
r
Dr. Sourav Chattopadhyay & Ors.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
M.A.T. 774 of 2020
With
I.A.No. CAN 1 of 2020
Dr. Moitreyee Chowdhury & Ors.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Subir Sanyal
Mr. Amiya Kr. Dutta
Mr. Swadesh Priya Ghosh......for appellants in
M.A.T. 773 of 2020
Mr. Amit Kumar
Mr. Amiya Kr. Dutta
Mr. Swadesh Priya Ghosh.......for appellants in
M.A.T. 774 of 2020
Mr. Indranil Roy
Mr. Sunit Kr. Roy........for National Medical
Commission
Mr. Swapan Kr. Dutta, Additional Govt. Pleader
Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, Jr. Standing Counsel
Mr. Tapas Kr. Dey
Mr. Arka Nag
Ms. Soumi Guha Thakurta.....for State
Mr. Debaki Nandan Maiti.....for respondent nos.
5, 6 and 7
Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing for
appellants in M.A.T. 773 of 2020 resumes his
argument. He refers to paragraphs 14 and 46 to 51 in
impugned judgment. He then relies on order dated
15th December, 2017 in Petitions for Special Leave
to Appeal C no. 11692/2017 (Dr. Amit Bagra and
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.), paragraphs 1
and extracted paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 to 15 from
said Court's judgment dated 25th May, 2017 in
Narendra Soni vs. State of Haryana reported in
(2017) 14 SCC 645.
At this stage Mr. Kumar, learned advocate
appears on behalf of appellants in the next appeal
(M.A.T. 774 of 2020) and points out, the quote made
by the Bench of Supreme Court in Amit Bagra
(supra) is from Narendra Soni (supra). That is not
apparent from the Manupatra Print at page-79 of the
paper book. He hands up copy of the order.
Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate,
Junior Standing Counsel led by Mr. Dutta, learned
advocate, Additional Government Pleader appearing
on behalf of State refers to quoted paragraph 10, the
passage after clause-(d), quoted paragraph 11 and
quoted paragraph 13 to submit, State wants to file
affidavit to disclose or produce additional evidence in
the appeal showing demarcation of Unnayan areas to
be the blocks, removed from urban or municipal
areas.
We notice from the quoted paragraphs that
in Narendra Soni (supra) Supreme Court said about
identification of areas as made without basis or on no
data. State in producing additional evidence will take
a call. The additional evidence is required to enable
us pronounce judgment in the appeals.
On query from Court Mr. Sanyal submits,
session has already started. As such, the affidavit be
filed on adjourned date upon advance copy served to
appellants by 30th January, 2021.
List 2nd February, 2021.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)
(Suvra Ghosh, J.)
