Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shyamal Kumar Adak vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 15 November, 2021
01
15.11.2021
TN
WPA No.11741 of 2021
IA No: CAN 1 of 2021
Shyamal Kumar Adak
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others
Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia,
Mr. Rajdeep Majumder,
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee,
Mr. Kallol Mondal,
Mr. B. Swaraj,
Mr. S. Kotwal,
Ms. M. Hasija,
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee,
Mr. Soumya Nag,
Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee,
Mr. Amrit Sinha,
Mr. Soumosree Chatterjee
.... for the petitioner
Mr. Sidharth Luthra,
Mr. Swaswata Gopal Mukherji,
Mr. Anirban Roy,
Mr. Raja Saha,
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee,
Mr. Asif Ahmed,
Mr. Aditya Raju,
Mr. Dewang Singh Chauhan
....for the State of West Bengal
Mr. Debasish Roy,
Mr. Jaydeep Biswas
.... for the respondent no.7
Mr. Y.J. Dastoor,
Mr. Phiroze Edulji,
Mr. Samrat Goswami
....for the CBI
Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept
on record.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner prays for an extension of the interim order,
granted earlier by a co-ordinate Bench, and extended
from time to time subsequently, for a limited period,
and requests that the matter may be fixed for hearing
before the Bench which originally passed the interim
order.
Such prayer is opposed by learned senior
counsel for the State, who contends that there have
been several judgments of the Supreme Court
deprecating such interim orders, that is, restraining
the authorities from taking any coercive steps,
particularly without assigning any reason therefor.
It is further submitted by Mr. Luthra, learned
senior counsel for the State that, in the circumstances
of the case, the interim order is being extended
indefinitely, thereby hampering the process of law
without the matter being heard on merits.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
no.7 adopts the objection of Mr. Luthra and further
submits that there is no impediment in this court
taking up the matter for final hearing as well, since
initially there was no ad interim order on the first
three occasions when the matter was heard but an
interim order was passed for the first time only on
September 14, 2021 by a co-ordinate Bench, that too,
without recording any appropriate reasons.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it
is evident that since the application for extension of
interim order was filed on November 9, 2021 itself, on
which date the interim order was due to expire, it
cannot be treated to be a fresh application for interim
order, requiring further hearing on the prima facie
strength of the case. Moreover, since the initial
interim order dated September 14, 2021 was passed
by a different learned Judge, it will tantamount to
vacating such order in the event this court takes into
consideration that no reasons were assigned for
passing the ad interim order, in which event this court
will virtually sit in judgment over the ad interim order
passed by the co-ordinate Bench. As such, more so,
since the learned Judge, who passed the ad interim
order initially on September 14, 2021 shall be
available from next week for taking up these matters,
the interim order granted earlier is extended for a
limited period, that is, till November 26, 2021 or until
further order, whichever is earlier.
The writ petition shall appear for hearing at the
top of the list on November 24, 2021 before the
appropriate Bench, subject to the convenience of the
said Bench.
It is made clear that, on the next returnable
date, WPA No.11741 of 2021 is required to be heard
on merits.
IA No: CAN 1 of 2021 is thus disposed of, with
liberty to the parties to mention the matter for
enlistment before the appropriate Bench and/or seek
further appropriate orders on the strength of the
prayers made in the writ petition itself, if so prayed
for, prior to expiry of the interim order granted today.
Parties shall act on the server copy of this order
without insisting upon prior production of a certified
copy thereof.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
