Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Dr. Goutam Pal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors.) on 12 May, 2022
12.05.2022 RVW 15 of 2022
(Dr. Goutam Pal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)
Court : 04
with
Item : PB-01 CAN 1 of 2022
Matter : RVW
Status : DO in
Transcriber: nandy
MAT 1071 of 2021
&
RVW 16 of 2022
in
MAT 1187 of 2021
Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Advocate
......for the Applicants
Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Senior Advocate
Mr. Piush Chaturwedi, Advocate
Mr. Rajib Mullick, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Sureka, Advocate
Mr. Anujit Mookherjee, Advocate
......for the College Authorities
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Advocate
Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Advocate
Ms. Debdooti Dutta, Advocate
Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Advocate
......for the State
Both the review applications are taken up together
having filed against the identical order and the similar
point has been taken as a ground for review.
These two applications for review are directed
against an order dated January 20, 2022 by which the
appeals were disposed of upon setting aside the order
of the single Bench and the writ-petition to be heard out
on merit upon giving an opportunity to the parties to
exchange affidavits. The said order would further reveal
that this Court kept all the points including the point
relating to maintainability of the writ-petition open and
once taken shall be decided in accordance with law. The
review applications are primarily aimed at the aforesaid
observation where the point of maintainability was kept
open to contend that there has already been a judgment
2
of the coordinate Bench holding the point of
maintainability and, therefore, there is an error apparent
on the face of the record.
After hearing the Counsel for the applicants who
filed the review applications, we do not think that such
observation contains any patent error. This Court
refrained from deciding the point of maintainability and
observed that if such point is taken by the respective
parties, the same shall be decided in accordance with
law. There is no conscious decision on the above aspect
nor we find that it amounts to a patent error within the
purview of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The moment this Court observed that such
point would be decided in accordance with law whatever
decision that would clinch the issue shall be taken into
consideration by the single Bench within the permissible
limit of law.
Thus we do not find any error apparent on the
face of the record warranting invocation of the powers of
review. However, at the time of hearing it is pointed out
that despite the leave having granted to the applicant
herein to file the supplementary affidavit within three
days from date of the said order, the same could not be
filed as an advice was given to file an application for
review. Though the appearing parties have objected to
the aforesaid prayer yet in order to render justice, we
feel that such time should be extended to give fullest
opportunity to the litigant to canvass his point before the
Court.
We thus extend the time for filing supplementary
affidavit by two days from date and the advance copy
3
thereof which has been shown to us in Court today shall
be served upon the respective parties in course of this
day.
It is pointed out by the applicant that the affidavit-
in-opposition used by the contesting respondents, has
not been served upon his client. The aforesaid
contention has not been disputed and/or denied by the
respondent who has affirmed the affidavit-in-opposition
at an earlier point of time and communicated to the
Court that the same would be served in course of this
day.
In view of the above, the said contesting
respondent is directed to serve the copy of the affidavit-
in-opposition upon the learned Advocate-on-record of
the applicant in course of this day.
The time to file reply is extended by a week from
date. The counter-affidavit to a supplementary affidavit,
which is expected to be served today, shall also be filed
within a week from date.
Liberty is granted to the parties to pray for early
disposal of the matter before the single Bench in the
light of the observations made hereinabove.
The review applications being RVW 15 of 2022
and RVW 16 of 2022 as well as the connected
application being CAN 1 of 2022 are disposed of.
(Harish Tandon, J)
(Rabindranath Samanta, J)
