Sri Durga Enterprise & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2604 Cal

     01.
06.05.2022.
 Ct. No. 11.
     F.B.

                                  FMA 119 of 2022


                            Sri Durga Enterprise & Anr.
                                       -Vs.-
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                        Mr. Ram Anand Agarwala,
                        Ms. Nibedita Pal,
                        Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee,
                        Mr. Sonam Roy
                                   ..... For the Appellants.

                        Mr. Susobhan Sengupta,
                        Mr. Subir Pal
                                   ..... For the State.

                        Mr. Sagar Bandyopadhyay,
                        Ms. Soma Kar Ghosh,
                        Mr. Abhishek Banerjee
                                   ..... For the Respondent

Respondent No. 4.

Party/parties is/are represented in the order of

their name/names as printed above in the cause title.

This instant matter is appeared in today's list as

"To Be Mentioned" for correction in the judgement dated

13th of April, 2022.

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4

submits that in page 5, paragraph 15 in line 2, the wife

of the respondent no. 4 should be read as "the

respondent no. 2 only" and the words "the wife of" is to

be deleted.

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4

further submits that in page 5 paragraph 15 in line 4

the words "the wife of" is to be deleted.

Now paragraph 15 of the judgment in page 5 is

to be read as "After the death of the husband of the

respondent no. 4 during Covid-19, the respondent no. 4

had applied for the said distributorship on

compassionate ground and accordingly on complying

with the provisions of the Control Order 2013, the

respondent no. 4 was granted distributorship in place of

her husband".

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and

Counsel for the State submits that in page 7 paragraph

18 of the judgment, it is wrongly mentioned as "The

Learned Counsel for the appellant instead of the

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and for the

State".

Paragraph 18 may be read as "The Learned

Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and for the State

relied upon the judgment reported in (2009) 3 SCC 250

paragraph 28 which reads as follows:-".

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and

for the State further submits that in page 8 of

paragraph 20, it is wrongly mentioned as "The Counsel

for the appellant instead of the Counsel for the

respondent no. 4 and for the State".

Paragraph 20 may be read as "The Learned

Counsel for the respondent no.4 and for the State relied

upon the judgment reported in (2020) SCC online SC

101 at paragraphs 14 to 17 which reads as follows:-".

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and

for the State further submits that in page 10, paragraph

21, it is wrongly mentioned as "The Counsel for the

appellant instead of the respondent no. 4 and for the

State".

Paragraph 21 at page 10 may be read as "The

Learned Counsel for the respondent no.4 and for the

State further relied upon the judgment reported in

(1964) 6SCR 261 at paragraph 17 which reads follows:-"

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and

for the State further submits that in paragraph 23 in

line 2 at page 11, the word "the appellant" has been

wrongly typed instead of "respondent no. 4".

Paragraph 23 at page 11 may be read as "The

Learned Single Judge has decided the writ petition on

merit and thus the judgment relied by the Counsel for

the respondent no. 4 reported in (2020) SCC online 101,

(1964) 6 SCR 261 (supra) are not applicable in the

instant case".

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and

for the State further submits that in paragraph 24 at

page 11 the word "the appellant" has been wrongly

typed instead of "respondent no. 4".

Paragraph 24 at page 11 shall be read as "The

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 relied upon

the judgment reported in (1999) 5 SCC 612 at

paragraph 4 which reads as follows:-".

This order may be treated as incorporated in,

hence the same may be treated as part of the order

dated 13th of April, 2022.

All parties to act in terms of the copy of the

order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Krishna Rao, J.) (Subrata Talukdar, J.)